Government Police Gang Rape Man

RStringfield said:
The constitution provides no real limit on the powers of the state. It's a government court that decides if there are any violations. And most violations never make it to any court. Only our societies diminishing respect for individual rights keeps the government from doing whatever it pleases.

What private police force would outlaw marijuana? There would have to be a large number of clients willing to voluntarily pay to fund an intrusive drug war and that is highly unlikely. The market would not support such action and neither would it support a service that gang rapes individuals for such a "crime."
Click to expand...


Your views are more insane that the status quo.
 
Damocles said:
You fail to comprehend what I stated.

Back before there were "government police", and in times during it, there were forces who enforced "protection" on others, and while doing so perpetrated some heinous crimes. It is preposterous to assume that giving that kind of power to people who are not government somehow changes them into perfect examples of restraint.

The comparison of current mall cop to the power of a police force is also preposterous and extreme based more in wishes than in reality.

The attempt to "fire" the security back in the day would cause those providing "protection" to cause them problems...
Click to expand...

I do not make that assumption. Restraint will come from them losing business. It is preposterous to assume that giving that kind of power to people who are government somehow changes them into perfect examples of restraint.

We can go to recent history and find widespread government police corruption. I think it is still with us, just better hidden.
 
I do not advocate any immediate move to privatizing police. I think it's a pipe dream for the most part. But whenever I criticize government police those who worship the state and are determined to apologize for its every vile act, throw out this red herring.
 
RStringfield said:
I do not make that assumption. Restraint will come from them losing business. It is preposterous to assume that giving that kind of power to people who are government somehow changes them into perfect examples of restraint.

We can go to recent history and find widespread government police corruption. I think it is still with us, just better hidden.
Click to expand...
They won't "lose business" when they use their power to threaten those who would fire them. That's the point.

And again, because they are a portion of the government they can be more easily restrained through other means. Voting out the corrupted officials that maintain and oversee their jobs is just one of them, the courts another, etc. Instead you propose we hire the mafia back to "protect" neighborhoods.

Privatization of executive power is a bad idea. One of the reasons that Libertarians will constantly be on the edge of the political mainstream is because they refuse to consider that no matter how much they think the free market would be great (I do) that it will NEVER come to fruition (it won't). It's an exercise in mental masturbation rather than any realistic proposal that we invest all that power in a private corporation because we can just fire the whole of the force...
 
Damocles said:
They won't "lose business" when they use their power to threaten those who would fire them. That's the point.
Click to expand...

They'd have to have a monopoly for that practice to have any luck and even then.

Damocles said:
And again, because they are a portion of the government they can be more easily restrained through other means. Voting out the corrupted officials that maintain and oversee their jobs is just one of them, the courts another, etc. Instead you propose we hire the mafia back to "protect" neighborhoods.
Click to expand...

It's very difficult to oust them. That's why police abuse and corruption is so prevalent.

Damocles said:
Privatization of executive power is a bad idea. One of the reasons that Libertarians will constantly be on the edge of the political mainstream is because they refuse to consider that no matter how much they think the free market would be great (I do) that it will NEVER come to fruition (it won't). It's an exercise in mental masturbation rather than any realistic proposal that we invest all that power in a private corporation because we can just fire the whole of the force...
Click to expand...

As I said, it is likely a pipe dream. Further, I certainly am not convinced it would work. I am simply willing to consider private police and to acknowledge that our current criminal justice system is grossly flawed.
 
Whenever I start to contemplate and truly consider the idea of anarcho-capitalism, I always fall back to the classical liberal position, just as Robert Nozick did (Anarchy, State, & Utopia). I'm not sure if it's a lack of imagination, but I doubt it. Like Damo said, there is a role for the state.

Moreover, I truly believe anarchy would simply lead to another state.
 
RStringfield said:
They'd have to have a monopoly for that practice to have any luck and even then.
Click to expand...

They would have an effective power monopoly because of the power you entrust to them. It would be especially effective if the gun-grabbers got their way.

It's very difficult to oust them. That's why police abuse and corruption is so prevalent.
Click to expand...

It is less prevalent with public police forces than it was in the past.

As I said, it is likely a pipe dream. Further, I certainly am not convinced it would work. I am simply willing to consider private police and to acknowledge that our current criminal justice system is grossly flawed.
Click to expand...

Grossly flawed I would agree with, even partially privatized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top