Agree with most of it, aside from " Areas the police don't go into in the UK because of islamic gangs" This isn't true, it's a myth perpetrated by British right wing media.
Everything else is spot on, I'm not having a go, I think your videos are incredibly useful for helping my friends understand my politics.I'm also a subscriber, I Just wanted to point that out. Peace!
Only problem with supply and demand police protection is that they would sell out for the highest bidder. If a gang got enough money, then they could just pay the police off. Plus, how would individuals pay for this protection if they don't make as much? You'd have to have everyone pool their money together to have the police patrol and protect people, and then you just invented a government and taxation. I believe in free markets, but this is taking it a tad far.
@Metaphysicist I'm all for getting government out of the economy, no regulations, no minimum wage, all that, but the whole role of government is to protect the people from having their rights invaded. Part of that power is the power to raise an army, and have a police force.
@xtremejohnny69 "then you just invented a government and taxation"
Not the case. If people pool resources together for a police force then they are doing so voluntarily, and so it is not taxation. Second, the protection they want is decided on beforehand, and they can voluntarily leave the protection of law enforcement if it got too powerful.
And we do not see private security or other service providers going to the highest bidder. I don't see how that would be a problem for stateless police.
Interesting video, but I heard a lot of arguing one position (the flaws with a state monopoly of police, which I agree) and not about what about the stateless-capitalist solution other than getting guns and hiring bodyguards (which assumes that everyone has the capacity to buy protection, disregarding those who don't).
Also your argument fails to describe the alternative. You claim that there are "No go zones" for the state police. If shots are fired in the ghetto and someone calls, they are still legally bound to go.
Whereas with private police, there is no money in the ghetto. If shots are fired in the ghetto-too bad. There's no money, there's no protection there.
Anarcho-capitalists have no idea how the world works. Social dynamics play a role as well.
@sltsnirvana In a free society there might not be ghettos. Businesses will be allowed to hire anyone at any rate of pay agreed upon. The employee will be allowed to keep all the money they earned. Tweens will be allowed to work keeping them off the streets and out of gangs. Actually with drugs and prostitution not being illegal there may be no gangs as they will have no way to fund their activities.
@AndyWright68 Are you kidding?? In a free society areas that are "ghetto" will increase while rich areas decrease as the money gets sucked towards those with it already...The richest of the rich would love for this to happen, do you think we're all going to go back to zero balance and start over again, yeah right!!! If...at all this happened it would be a ready set go kind of thing, and those without substantial funds would be fucked like never before.
@sltsnirvana How much protection do you need with no incentives to steel & where most people are armed, the best deterrent. The wild west was actually the mild west. The more people arm themselves and defend others the less violence there is. Plus if my neighborhood armed it's guards and beefed up security because the cops were abolished we would require they respond to surrounding neighborhoods. When there is a need it will be fulfilled.
The problem with drug laws has nothing to do with police, it has to do with the courts.
Studies indicate more police equals less crime. You cannot refute this.
Yes, the police is a monopoly and not very efficient, but the alternative is private defense. You mentioned that the rich can buy bodyguards. In a free market society, the same thing would happen. The rich would buy defense while the poor are defenseless. Free market police means they only serve the richest interest group
I believe drugs should be outlawed, it should be the primary function of our police considering we can handle ourselves otherwise. I am a starch opponent of Slavery, Social, economic and physical. Drug addiction is just another form of slavery.
We can protect ourselves from each other, the government should protect us from the foreign slave makers.
@TheQuestioner132 I've seen both sides. I took a chemistry class at a private college and we did our lab experiments in styrofoam Burger Kiing cups, had to share chemicals/equipment and only had a half semester of lab.
At a community college we each had our own chemicals/equipment, performed our lab experiments using legit laboratory equipment and had a full semester of lab.
Also, I was late in signing up for the calss in the community college and a separate lab was opened just for me.
And further more, if the STATE is the sole PURCHASER (not supplier) of Police protection (the hired labor is the supplier ;)) ; then you a MONOPSONY. Go look it up.
@soyuski Disappointingly, after looking it up, I found the definition to be pretty much what you just said. I want my 15 seconds I spent on Google back! ( ;
Police power comes from the elected civilian authority to call forth the militia to suppress invasion or civil disorder. People whom take it upon themselves to become "Police" become nothing more than tin badge outlaws. Learn about John Locke and the Social Contract , not this anti-social propaganda.
@TheQuestioner132 I studied on public university. But in my country, it's the best university.
On last federal government before the current, there was a huge private education expansion. And guess what? It was bad quality education, but there a some education moguls that got billionaire on this process.
You should base your arguments on dogmas like "Private education on average costs half as much."
I agree that focusing on repression is counter-productive, but imo common police still has a role to play and private police is somewhat corrupt if not outright feudal.
Also note that crime is correlated to the social environment, and it appears that there's more crime in the US (less tax, less social services) and less in more progressive regions with more taxes and more social services (Canada, Western Europe) . Might be a component of explanation along with other correlated factors (culture)
Not to try to dis your overall argument, but the reason only 3 people died in an old western gunfight which seems insignificant to us now is because of the technology. Guns are simply far more potent now and thus tend to result in more deaths. While policy probably has something to do with it, available technology has a very significant impact.
Theres no reason to have police in a Anarchist society. This is the falacy that you can only rely on government. If neighbors worked together to defend each other and have communal justice. Also Ibelieve in natural justice.
@Solutionstoourworld Do u mean everyone should have guns? Communal justice= lynch mob? What's natural justice? Please explain me, because I am a lawyer and never heard about that.
Interestingly I'm sure cocaine tooth drops not only worked but were weak enough not to have any effects of an actual dose of cocaine (eg highness, addiction, whatever).
I'm glad I found this series. You make some very interesting, thought-provoking points, many of which I agree with. But I have a question: Is there a country that you would point to as a paragon of what you think America should become? I ask because libertarians seem to believe in the free market as panacea for just about all of our society's problems. If true, (thinking on a global scale) the free market of ideas would lead a nation to realize what you're advocating and others to copy it.
In modern times there has been no such paragon, possibly because of the clout of all existing systems, and in renouncing your state you invite invasion from lesser states.
...and to finish my thought, a community can pool together funds to pay for services of any sort (including police - the origins of our current system).
There is also the amazing possibility that in a truly free market system, poor communities will have better options to turn to than crime, especially compared to the options they have in our current system.
That's out of the scope of this reply, tho. Consider that the system as a whole would be fundamentally different than ours today.
If I may, privatizing police does not preclude the emergence of volunteer units -think NYC guardian angels, who did a lot of work to clean up the city in the seventies and early eighties when the police were largely ineffective and who were subsequently demonized by the police once things seemed more under control. It also does not preclude personal protection, which is now legislated away in most places to the poorest.
In an anarcho-capitalist society, what would PDAs do about murderers and paedophiles who attacked people who didn't have any private defence contract.
Anarcho-capitalism sounds like a middle- and upper-class ideology to me. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course, but how would the weak and poor be able to defend themselves.
Rich people buy Bentleys and poor people buy Toyotas...
Get the picture?
There will be PDAs for poor people.
I think a poor person that had any sense would make the acquisition of a GUN their FIRST priority though...I think that would be everyone's first priority when it comes to self defense ....
Philly, the largest police per citizen city in the US, 95% of the time I have called the cops out, they haven't come & I live in a nice aria.
They don't even come out for writing up a report on a burglary unless you call them like 4 times, at least a few hours after feeding times.
The reason people in Philly hate them is, cops act as is they're too busy making a difference to respond to a call, yet they're nowhere to be seen, other then at diners or corner stores, just hanging out.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Most guys posting here r kids who fear police and government. All this anarcho-shit comes from problems w autorithies and low education. They build all this fantasy beging w prepositions as "police is evil" or "taxes r extortions".
I'm actually college educated and the only run-ins with the law I have/had is when I occasionally get pulled over for speeding. I'm not afraid of police at all, either.
So, if u have the proper education, u should know that all premises of this videos r wrong, as it conclusion. Do u think public service (a public service that naturaly belongs to state as police) should be treated as selling consumer goods? Who will have the power on an anarch society?
And I love how this person is discriminating against those that have 'low education.' As if Government schools could really provide a decent education.
@FlashVirus I got the best education available on my country. I studied at private schools because public schools sucks here. Then I moved to public universities because it is better.
The problem of low education is ignorance. Ignorance is worst than evil, because ignorant do and speak evil and think it is good.
If u had any good education, u would know that this economic reasoning is all wrong and doesn't make sense.
Jesus, thats all the proof in the world that you need! You convinced me. If your economic argument is as coherent as your rebuttal and grammar structure then by all means go ahead and convince anarchists how they're gravely mistaken. Hell, theres an open forum here called Mises (dot) org that you can post on and enlighten anarchists with your superior knowledge with no character-restraint (as in youtube). See ya there.
@AntonBatey@felo790 Also, taxation historically is exacty extortion, the first kings were in fact thieves who realised that it would be much more effective to periodically extort farmers and defend them against other robbers than to just kill and rob them. Though there are many layers of bullshit, this is basically the same today.
@felo790 The king (don) got to feed his soldiers (extorters), I agree, what's your point? "Coercion is a big part of Law (the symbol of Law is a scale - justice and a sword - coercion)" -So if a country put a symbol of a pedophile raping a little kid on it's flag, that would make it ok? I'm not against coercion if someone robs or kills a man, I'm against the monopoly on coercion.
Please stop debating this issue as you are clearly too stupid to understand anarchism with your current mindset.
Without coercion, or empire power as doctrine says, which is broader, there's no law. Got it? If a make rule - "u shall not rob me" but you are more powerful and rob me so I can't apply a sanction on you. All I can say is shame on you. Guess what? That rule - U shall not rob me - isn't a law. Without coercion, there's no law, there's no justice.
This is fairly easy, even u kids can understand this.
You know nothing about the laws of supply and demand, you don't know the difference between negative (natural) law and positive law, you don't understand that the state is simply a breed between a criminal organisation and a monopolist corporation, you know nothing about economics, politics, the law or psychology, so why do you feel the need to argue about a subject you know nothing about?
You are too ignorant to be arhued with, just stop.
@delboyzgzg First u are retard, get a degree. And I am laweyr graduated at top school. Im just curious about psychologu, but i know a good deal of economics and politics.
Please, explain to me this positive law and negative law concept. Because in all my years of law studying, I have never seen this.
@felo790 Yet you can't even spell lawyer.. If you don't know the difference between positive and negative law, you are either full of shit about being a lawyer or prove my belief (or if you disagree with me, maybe you'd like to check out A. Einstein's thoughts of this?) that formal education is crap. Google it and stop embarrasing yourself.
@delboyzgzg Again, u r a retard. I googled negative law and I couldn't find it please explain me. Positive law has a meaning different than in my language, but it doesn't matter.
Formal education is very important. Would u have a surgey with a doctor or a tribal healer? Of course the doctor. The problem with social sciences is that everyone trust their common sense and dislike all formal knowledge produced by genertions.
Of course, if charged, u would prefer to hire a lawyer than self-defense.
@felo790 You know, you could call me a retard a thousand times, it doesn't make it true.
Negative (natural) law unlike positive law doesn't deal with victomless crimes, it basically means: your freedom to swing fists ends where my nose ends.
And formal education is not entirely bad, but if you read some books on mnemonic memory tricks, you'll find that formal education does nothing to improve intelligence and in fact stumps it and trains strictly right brain thought.
@delboyzgzg Law isnt only about crime. Imagine a law that regulates the bank-customer realtion after a big economic crysis, most of the rules there wont be about crimes but about civil-comercial relations.
If the bank owns you money, or the other way, u wont be able to grab your guns and compel the bank into giving your money , at least not in civilized society. Then u have to use the justice (public justice) to compel the bank to pay u.
@felo790 Yes, a simple example of how regulation is helping the banks screw the customer. How did people lose their houses in the credit crunch if regulation is so great?
I'm done with this.
You're a dinosaur clinging to a dying system, but as the conformist that you are, you will adopt to anarchism once it comes, so who cares about your opinion?
It's not your own anyway, so stop channeling other people's words, we've heard them already. You're boring. GTFO
@delboyzgzg You didn't understand the example, bank was just for example.
How will u coerce someone to pay u a debt? Or to destroy that huge wall that is making a shadow at your garden? Or remove the car that was parked on your garages exit?
@delboyzgzg I really disagree w everything you say, but I admire that you would fuck your life for your beliefs (altought, I know that when the time comes, everyone wnats to save his own ass)
@felo790 The existence of the police cannot be justified if you measure justice with liberty. Meaning where there is no liberty... there is no justice. So you cannot justify any such claims of state-funded police being justified. If I didn't restate that enough times please feel free to respond back.
@jcsmtih900 What u wrote above just doesn't make sense. The guys here are preaching a private police, and not no police at all.
Justifying police? That's easy: who will arrest robbers? who will investigate crimes? Just some easy examples.
About private police... this is ridicule. Everyone (who has some knowledge about public law) agree that police power (lato sensu) should be at state's hand. Private companies can't mess with my liberty.
@jcsmtih900 You always give up some liberty to live in society. You have rights because others have duty, as u have duty to respect others rights.
Actually, u can have private protection in almost every country. But private police... do u want a private profit driven company investigating, persecuting,arresting, conducting search warrants etc...? And how will u pay private police? Taxes? Contract? Or they will rob criminals (or whom they think looks like a criminal)?
@felo790 Well no one HAS to have private police as it is after all a want and not a necessity, but unless you, yourself wants to defend your rules of your property than you can pay a private police organization.
Now you (along with myself and others) bring up that this could be somewhat sketch (as far as the "personal thugs" critique goes). This is where regulation is needed. Government regulation is and always has been a mess, so private watchdog companies would ensure justice and quality.
@jcsmtih900 I couldn't disagree more. Do u think Blackwater is doing a good job at Iraq?
Again, private protection is awfully different than private police. I am not just talking about protecting property, but about repressing a whole lot of crimes, as murder.
Again, how will u pay it? And those who can't afford private police? Will they be helpless? There is a lot of ethical/efficiency issues on private police.
BTW, private regulation concerning public welfare is a mess.
@felo790 Private Protection? Like body guards? How do you pay for police in today's society? Taxes. If you're not paying taxes you have more money. Supply and demand. Private regulation is better than government regulation anyway you put it.
That's right... taxes, and how will u pay private police. Taxes too?
Private regulation isn't better for police. How a regulation that is constructed to make a company profit can be better?
Still, how will u give up some of ur liberty to a private company? Who will regulate police procedures and service quality? The shareholders? Man... this is impossible to happen in any constitutional modern society.
For one you're using ad-hominems, which means you may not be secure in your own beliefs. Two, taxation is theft. If government officials had sex with girls against their will, you would still call it rape. But if government officials take money from someone at gunpoint then its 'taxation.' Look up stefbot on youtube.
@FlashVirus I'm pretty secure. Taxation isn't theft. U use public roads, study at public shools, is protected by police... look, u live in a political organized society that is harmonized by the law. Do u think its free?
Again, I ask: would u be willing to give up your fredoom and some fundamental rights to a company? By the way, I company that you don't own a share, that can arrest you, that bear guns.
Proof? What happens if you don't pay taxes? You will be sent off to jail. Like I said, if government officials courted young girls and forced marriage with them and forced them to perform sexual acts then it would still be rape. They being government officials wouldn't change anything.
And your other comments show you know nothing of anarchism. I'm going to contact you in PM and give you some websites on Voluntarysim so you may learn. (continued later)
@FlashVirus The cabal proof is just reading the law, taxation isn't theft. So, if u live in a peaefull, political organized society w some basic services provided by the state, and you don't want to pay the taxes ( a duty imposed to all). Don't u think the state should use legal constraints on you?
I bet that if u provided a service, and wasn't paid, you would pick your guns and do some anarcho justice.
Roads, education, militias, letter-delivery, etc.. has all been discusses numerous times here on youtube alone. Just look up "Stefbot" on youtube for some of these answers. Of course these services aren't 'free' they're funded by taxation, anarchists should how they would exist in a free society.
And @ the rights remark, you have to read the AOC and the American Constitution. We don't get our rights from the Const, we already HAD our rights, the document is merely there to enforce..
@FlashVirus "Of course these services aren't 'free' they're funded by taxation, anarchists should how they would exist in a free society. " So taxation will exist, even on your fantasy anarcho society?
"We don't get our rights from the Const, we already HAD our rights, the document is merely there to enforce.. " Some rights are declared, they existed before. Some exist after the constitution, like voting, for example.
You do realize that some of those that are Libertarians & Anarchists are people who accurately predicted the economic crises of the past decade, right? Just look up "Peter Schiff was right" on youtube. And its great that you try to psycho-analyze Anarchists instead of properly offering a rebuttal, if you really did want to take down this false theory then go to Mises or contact Stefbot on youtube and offer to debate him.
@FlashVirus Everybody knew about the crises. But people who were earning money on stocks ( amateur investors) always tought: I can just earn a little more before everything crumbles.
I'm sorry that a psycho-analyze anarchist, because i am not a shrink. But what I see as a common feature on anarchist and libertarians is the dogma that authority is evil. Government is evil. This is highly irrational, it can only be the result of particular bad experiences.
@felo790 Most anarcho-capitalists I know are also moral nihilists, so I highly doubt they think government is evil since evil doesn't exist. We aren't even necessarily opposed to voluntary governing bodies over communities, which could be called government. It's the STATE that is opposed. An involuntary monopoly on force of land not tied to their labor.
@theradioschizo Moral nihilists is the same than immoral, but they try to find arguments to justify their behavior.
The State is social creation necessary, because if the government was a company (even if everyone was a shareholder) it wouldn't work. Because companies can't coerce you. Coercion is a big part of Law (the symbol of Law is a scale - justice and a sword - coercion). Without coercion, that I'm sure that most kids here thinks is evil, Law isn't different than moral or ethics.
3 people die in tombstone when guns aren't allowed. Now, everybody wants to have a gun and says it's their right and it doesn't reach the news anymore. I'm not sure what you meant by that...
BTW, Imagine if this shit society that u advocate. Now, imagine that I own my own police (hahahaha this is riddiculous). Some shady-character wants to donate me 5 million dollars. As a free-entrepreneur I can accept that. Why shouldnt I accept that?
Thats a single and simple (so u tards can understand) of the ethic and morality behind public services. Police is not private protection and, of course, not a fast food service. Get real guys.
Just to add my company slogan: "The cheapest price around". "Full beatdown in 5 minutes or your protection moneys back". "If a cop arrest you, send a check and his name and he will be fired!"
Police don't protect anyone, and if they do, it's because of that particular cop's outstanding character. All they do is deter a few people from committing certain crimes, and throw a bunch of people into the legal system to generate revenue for the state.
And to finish, its not a private service sold by the state using monopoly, its a power working, a state duty, prerrogative of a peaceful society.
When the guy who made the video draws this basic economic chart, he demonstrates not only lack of basic economic knowldge, but also lack of law and social science. Lots of private polices working in the same jurisdiction, w profit as goals, lowering its prices to people who want to pay.... Grow up, u retards, get a degree, get a shrink
Instead of acting like a child, why don't you actually try to be respectful? That's what AntonBatey is doing, you should try it. Calling someone a "stupid fool" (which sounds like middle english btw) a retard and a kid isn't promoting open debate, it's flaming.
You're acting like a kid, and calling us kids. That's called hypocrisy. Grow up.
Unless you really want to know the answer to your questions, don't post on this video or others like it.
I spent time to explain some basics to this 787, like crime and law (my expertise). And the kid didnt understand and refuted it w arguments drawn from its imagiantion (like organized crime exists because the state, the was something like the earth is flat). I love to talk (and respect) people that has different points of view than me, but a good argument must have a solid base, and this kid has no base at all and was arrogant not to question my arguments but to refute it his own imagination.
Nothing that you say makes any sense or is backed up with real-world evidence. None of it logically follows anything that we know about human interaction and economics. You tell people they sound like idiots while sounding like the world's largest yourself.
It's telling that when I present a challenge to your opinion, you ignore my challenge and simply repeat yourself. Creationists do this all the time. You wouldn't happen to be a theist, would you?
Just to explain to u kids. Police is draws its powers from the executice power (3 power theory). It does a genuinely public service - administrative police and judicial police. Judicial police (private protection is similar to admistrative police) is investigating and instructing criminal process, as well carrying orders from other autorithies (like the judge). So there no way to exist a judicial private police, no private can broke into do search and prision warrants, as well bugging phones.
"Police is draws its powers from the executice power"
So someone writes on a piece of paper, "there shall be police to assert authority over the 'free' people of the United States" and some random people sign that piece of paper, and now suddenly the police have authority over citizens? How does that work exactly? What is the mechanism behind this magic piece of paper that somehow grants citizen A authority over citizen B?
Your r one of the most ignorant, arrogant, dumb kids I know. U cant understand basic concepts as legitimacy, law, freedom and crime. As I already told I got a extensive science backgorund at the best univeristies around here and all that I wrote here is basic thing u will learn at the start of univerity education. So finish high school, get some education and then, u can start talking about politics without making a fool of yourself.
By the way, I've noticed you don't spend much time actually talking about the topic being discussed. No, you just make a bunch of random claims and then switch topics after I respond and demonstrate how utterly wrong you are. You're talking about your academic credentials and the languages that you speak instead of making any inkling of a counterargument whatsoever. Not to mention you've freely admitted that your a homicidal maniac. I'm not sure I need to continue this discussion anymore.
All this anarchy argument hasnt a single piece of research behind it. It develops around the point government is evil, which is not a good point to start a bold (ultra-bold) statement on police. I am not a homicide maniac. U dont understand a shit about basic economy. U dont know what public law is, so its hard for u to understand the rights and duties of public institutions.
There has been a lot written about anarchy. There are historical examples. I'm not sure why you'd claim there's "not a single piece of research" about it, since that's so clearly wrong.
Anarchy doesn't claim that government is evil. It claims that government is illegitimate. Anarchy means that no one person or group of people forces control over anyone else. You really are NOT grasping what anarchy actually is.
Anything that public institutions can do, privates can do better.
I know that lot has been written, but most people as you didnt read it. "It claims that government is illegitimate" - Wrong. All power comes from the people, and people can elect it representative.
"Anything that public institutions can do, privates can do better." Wrong. Where do u get this tought? This is damn wrong. I dont want to pay protection money to private police (whoops... seems a mafia thing). The coercitive power should be used only by state and not private companies
"All power comes from the people, and people can elect it representative."
Well that's just completely incorrect. The power comes from the guns they use. If they did not have guns, nobody would abide by their rules.
"Where do u get this tought?"
From basic economics and free-market examples. It's a fact that the services government provides become bloated and less efficient, costing more and providing less than what an equivalent private vendor could provide.
"I dont want to pay protection money to private police (whoops... seems a mafia thing)."
You already pay for police protection with taxes, but because it's forced on you, you don't have the freedom to choose to pay for a different provider of that service. So not only is it monopolistic, but it's also cartelized. Yep, sounds exactly like the mob. Funny, given how often politicians actually have mob ties.
U have to pay taxes. thats basic civilization. If u can afford, u can pay ur private protection too (not police, cause private police doesnt exist, because police is a state function).
"So not only is it monopolistic, but it's also cartelized" - U dont know whats a monopoly and have no idea whats a cartel. U lack the basic economics. One more time, there no police monopoly, because theres no police market, and will never be. Monopoly is when there one seller for the whole market. Got it?
No it's not, it's extortion. Civilization is allowing people to live peaceably together. Taxation is stealing money using the threat of violence. There is nothing civil about it.
"there no police monopoly, because theres no police market"
That's the definition of a monopoly: cornering the market and eliminating competition. There isn't a market because the government has eliminated it. It is the only seller. How are you this dense?
Stupid fool. Market is where sellers meet buyers. Not police case. U can pay private protection, rich people here pay it. But dont think private protection is similar to police work.
I could write a whole article about this, cause this is easy and i am about to join the feds. But u dont seem to have any college education at all. So I will waste my time and writing here is not that easy for me (enlish is my second language). So try to fix by yourself ur twisted ideas.
A market is not a place or a thing, it is human interaction, that's all. The interaction taking place is someone is paying for a service (police). This should make sense, since people already pay for police service, but they have no choice other than to pay for the government's version of it.
Just one last tought... organized crime existed before police. Just take a look at italian mobs (Comorra, ndrangheta, and etc.). A kid saying police created organized crime is a non-sense.
There's no business in organized crime unless the state makes something illegal. Al Capone couldn't have run a bootlegging racket had prohibition not been enacted. The things that YOU'RE saying are ridiculous.
Ur fuckin stupid. A crime is a crime because of the law (normative theory). But if u permit robbery, killing and kidnapping, organized crime want be organized crime it will be just an organization that practices robbery, killing and kidnapping. All u retards think the only crime out there is drugs? Tha whole arguments behind this is bs from a kids imagination. The whole argument behind me is like 500 years of scientific development.
And I'm the stupid one? A crime is a crime because it is injurious to another person. Smoking weed is not a crime just because there is a law against it. Bad laws are all over the place.
What you're completely and spectacularly failing to grasp is that crimes would not go unpunished in an anarchic society; there just wouldn't be a state doing the punishing, that's all.
"Theres no crime before previous law". U can find it on any modern constitution. By the way, I am a criminal lawyer, and I wont teach u law, so go to a library and stuydy.
Yeah, sure you are, and I'm an astronaut! Thanks for the laugh! They taught you how to spell and form sentences REALLY well in law school, didn't they? Perhaps you didn't "stuydy" enough!
"law can be enforced."
Put a gun against someone's head and you can enforce those other things in the exact same way. The government uses violence to enforce laws, so there's no difference at all.
I study a lot. English is my second language. Maybe u prefer protuguese (my first) or spanish. I can write in italian too (but I suck at it, only basics). By the way u shoud learn the basics of law, economics and other social science.
By the way. I advocate drug liberalization. But even then, we have to build hospitals and mad-house for everyone (no company will build it to treat broken adiicts). And how will we build that? Taxes, heavy taxes.
people could enforce common law more effectively if the government didn't have a monopoly on "protection"... or something like that.... it probably wouldn't be much different than it is now. most people wouldn't just sit by and watch their neighbors get raped and robbed. so people might do the "police work" themselves. it wouldn't be perfect, but neither is the system we have now.
"people could enforce common law more effectively" Hurrah to lynch mobs and billions of guns! Sorry pal, we have civilization and laws. If u dont like it, get used to it, or go to jail.
Who will have the power on a stateless society? A fool can say everyone. Everyone will have a gun (american way), and there will be fewers law to break so... no one will break it. But the truth is the power will concetrate on the hands of few who already have the power (economic power- the capitalists). Then will have minarchies, local warlords. The state as we know it is fruit of french revolution, a way to make laws stronger than monarchs whim.
local warlords? like governors, mayors etc? why shouldn't people have the option to separate themselves from the state? why shouldn't people have the choice to live their lives without being forced to fund a government that they don't want?
Because its the law! Why cant father leave their kids? Because theres law. Why cant I kil evey fuckin moron that I met? Because theres law. Do u have a problem w law?
"Why cant I kil evey fuckin moron that I met? Because theres law."
Well, just because you're a completely despicable piece of shit doesn't mean the rest of us are. Most of US don't kill because we think killing is wrong. Not because an arbitrary law exists.
Saying that the only reason you don't kill people is because there is a law is like saying that the only reason you're a good person is because some random ancient story book (like the Bible) exists. Makes no sense at all.
Of the people that don't murder, most of them refrain from doing so because they think it is wrong. So obviously the statement allows for the occasional nut job who finds nothing wrong with murdering and does it anyway. The only difference between them and you, apparently, is that you stop yourself because a law exists. Sane people stop themselves because it is wrong.
I understand the concept of that supply and demand left to naturally decide the amount of police would do a better job, but who would pay for it in a taxless stateless society?
The reason it gets more expensive in US while get less protection is not mainly because it costs more but due to the bought political influence of capital, one you decrease taxes you will have less resources, once you decrease education you will have less problem ruling the mob, once you reached that far you can continue the spiral of propaganda - ruling by fear where the society values greed over human rights & a stage where you either limit money's political influence or crash.
Plice protection will be more expensive with state monoploy. SO fucking wrong. State goal isnt profit. Corps goal is profit. Imagine lots of milicia armed charging u protection money. This anarchism shit exist only on US. (it exist outside US by only on small dissocial groups) Why? Why americans mistrust their government so much?
Gee, maybe bc our gov't is a bunch of thugs who lie regularly? Also, you did nothing to disprove cs' assertion that state monopolies increase the price. Private defense is simple, police , not bound by geography will compete for customers. They won't "rule" anything. They'll be the same people as modern police, but won't harass you, break down your door for pot, bc you can just go to their competitors. There are several other options
because we have the freedom and responsibility to do so in this country. the state here (at least in my area) ticket motorists the most at the end of the month to meet the monthly budget. they create crimes and usurious fines and fees to balance the budget. it wasn't that way 30 years ago but it is now!
Question? do you believe that Democracy has failed....or do you believe that our great Democracy has been infiltrated by the enemy and is destroying Democracy from within the Federal Gov. ?Cuz I believe that the SS Nazis are alive and well regrouped into the 4th Riech.....other wise known as the US Federal Gov.....IRS, Fed Reserve....etc.....Democracy cant be blamed for the 120 year infiltration of sick and twisted royals and german Nazis.........
thumbs up to 44774477ric! Just saw Bill Mahr do an interview with the author of "The Family" and he's basically uncovering the story of this group of people who call themselves "The Family" - they work at high levels within gov't and wall-street and they simply believe they are "chosen by God" to rule over the earth. Pretty fracking insane, but it's real...
I don't know about you but I'd be scared shitless of an anarchist society where drugs are legal and the police force was privatized. It'd be like dozens of "Black Water" organizations, bought out by the rich, of course - drug lords teaming up with corporate giants in the interest of profiteering.. I can see it quickly descending into urban drug-wars, but where it's all basically LEGALIZED LOL :) I mean you can legalize criminal activity, but will legalization necessarily reform a criminal mind?
It is impossible to have this work without a state, because a community is a state, not anarchy. You mention a community purchasing police protection around :31, which represents a state. And, furthermore, assuming that in true anarchy individuals are the only entities capable of paying for protection services, there would be a great deal of market failure (as not everyone could purchase protection) similar to modern health insurance schemes.
Strong arguments, though a police-less large urban environment hasn't exist as far as I know, and I expect that any social experiment removing them would cause some pretty extensive violent and selfish behaviour... at least at first.
That being said, I do think that In a society where everyone can effectively protect themselves (legalized firearms and all associated forms of protection) this would probably work in the long term.
There's a problem in your model: "any increase in price will cause them to lose profit" . But the State is technically a non-profit organization. The State is a corrupted organization, but THE SOURCE of all corruption in Washington is THE PRIVATE SECTOR - that's where the MONEY IS COMING FROM that's where the bribes are coming from. I don't see how handing civic duties over to the problematic world of greed and profiteerism is going to solve anything...
I wasn't implying that communism is the answer. I'm just saying anarchism is not the answer either. Actually I am against extremism altogether. I believe in something like limited decentralized government, with a single-tax (land value taxation), and I believe the market should be a blend of natural and money economies. I don't like extreme wealth, extreme poverty, extreme anarchism, extreme communism - NO EXTREMES for me, thanks LOL :)
i have respect for your POV. Unfortunately, i just took a microeconomics course, and this is unjustified classification of those principles... come up with some hard evidence, and maybe the republicans (and myself) wont laugh so hard.
To be fair police presence alone has probably saved or helped alot of us, without our knowlege. Nevertheless, I agree with their many failings, due to the interests of 'us' and 'them', whoever that happens to be at the time. What you suggest however, leaves me torn. I like your logic. Despite this I can't help thinking that the result would be a series of ephemeral city states. War lords writ large really. Maybe this is better? If so, too bad. Please respond if you feel so inclined. thnx
Just the mere knowledge that there is indeed police out there that will incarcerate them if they violate social norms is enough to deter 98% of the population from committing crimes.
So yes, we've all indirectly benefited from police presence. People don't obey laws because of moral values or beliefs, they comply because they have the fear of incarceration/execution. Fear is the greatest motivator of all.
I like the mild mild west because it's about time we heard that. That America loves such a phony image so that we always think our "freedom" is under threat at anytime they like to say so.
Agree with most of it, aside from " Areas the police don't go into in the UK because of islamic gangs" This isn't true, it's a myth perpetrated by British right wing media.
Everything else is spot on, I'm not having a go, I think your videos are incredibly useful for helping my friends understand my politics.I'm also a subscriber, I Just wanted to point that out. Peace!
BeepStratten 5 months ago
Socialised hate was an awesome album
seigneurvoland666 6 months ago
Only problem with supply and demand police protection is that they would sell out for the highest bidder. If a gang got enough money, then they could just pay the police off. Plus, how would individuals pay for this protection if they don't make as much? You'd have to have everyone pool their money together to have the police patrol and protect people, and then you just invented a government and taxation. I believe in free markets, but this is taking it a tad far.
xtremejohnny69 7 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 Thankyou I'm glad to know that somebody else see's that major catch of a Anarchist/Stateless society.
Metaphysicist 7 months ago
@Metaphysicist I'm all for getting government out of the economy, no regulations, no minimum wage, all that, but the whole role of government is to protect the people from having their rights invaded. Part of that power is the power to raise an army, and have a police force.
xtremejohnny69 7 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 "then you just invented a government and taxation"
Not the case. If people pool resources together for a police force then they are doing so voluntarily, and so it is not taxation. Second, the protection they want is decided on beforehand, and they can voluntarily leave the protection of law enforcement if it got too powerful.
And we do not see private security or other service providers going to the highest bidder. I don't see how that would be a problem for stateless police.
Dirge987 6 months ago
Interesting video, but I heard a lot of arguing one position (the flaws with a state monopoly of police, which I agree) and not about what about the stateless-capitalist solution other than getting guns and hiring bodyguards (which assumes that everyone has the capacity to buy protection, disregarding those who don't).
caspringer09 8 months ago
I love your videos and totally agree too!:)
melcyone 8 months ago
Also your argument fails to describe the alternative. You claim that there are "No go zones" for the state police. If shots are fired in the ghetto and someone calls, they are still legally bound to go.
Whereas with private police, there is no money in the ghetto. If shots are fired in the ghetto-too bad. There's no money, there's no protection there.
Anarcho-capitalists have no idea how the world works. Social dynamics play a role as well.
sltsnirvana 1 year ago
@sltsnirvana In a free society there might not be ghettos. Businesses will be allowed to hire anyone at any rate of pay agreed upon. The employee will be allowed to keep all the money they earned. Tweens will be allowed to work keeping them off the streets and out of gangs. Actually with drugs and prostitution not being illegal there may be no gangs as they will have no way to fund their activities.
AndyWright68 11 months ago
@AndyWright68 Are you kidding?? In a free society areas that are "ghetto" will increase while rich areas decrease as the money gets sucked towards those with it already...The richest of the rich would love for this to happen, do you think we're all going to go back to zero balance and start over again, yeah right!!! If...at all this happened it would be a ready set go kind of thing, and those without substantial funds would be fucked like never before.
PuNkThRaShDrUnKHaSh 10 months ago
@sltsnirvana How much protection do you need with no incentives to steel & where most people are armed, the best deterrent. The wild west was actually the mild west. The more people arm themselves and defend others the less violence there is. Plus if my neighborhood armed it's guards and beefed up security because the cops were abolished we would require they respond to surrounding neighborhoods. When there is a need it will be fulfilled.
AndyWright68 11 months ago
The problem with drug laws has nothing to do with police, it has to do with the courts.
Studies indicate more police equals less crime. You cannot refute this.
Yes, the police is a monopoly and not very efficient, but the alternative is private defense. You mentioned that the rich can buy bodyguards. In a free market society, the same thing would happen. The rich would buy defense while the poor are defenseless. Free market police means they only serve the richest interest group
sltsnirvana 1 year ago
I think police, or any civil servant, would exist in a stateless society because people want to feel protected and help others.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
I believe drugs should be outlawed, it should be the primary function of our police considering we can handle ourselves otherwise. I am a starch opponent of Slavery, Social, economic and physical. Drug addiction is just another form of slavery.
We can protect ourselves from each other, the government should protect us from the foreign slave makers.
allwittynamestaken 1 year ago
@TheQuestioner132 I've seen both sides. I took a chemistry class at a private college and we did our lab experiments in styrofoam Burger Kiing cups, had to share chemicals/equipment and only had a half semester of lab.
At a community college we each had our own chemicals/equipment, performed our lab experiments using legit laboratory equipment and had a full semester of lab.
Also, I was late in signing up for the calss in the community college and a separate lab was opened just for me.
IronicKismet 1 year ago
And further more, if the STATE is the sole PURCHASER (not supplier) of Police protection (the hired labor is the supplier ;)) ; then you a MONOPSONY. Go look it up.
soyuski 1 year ago
@soyuski Disappointingly, after looking it up, I found the definition to be pretty much what you just said. I want my 15 seconds I spent on Google back! ( ;
dingobabystealer 1 year ago
Stateless Police=Vigilante Committees aka. "Warlords".
Police power comes from the elected civilian authority to call forth the militia to suppress invasion or civil disorder. People whom take it upon themselves to become "Police" become nothing more than tin badge outlaws. Learn about John Locke and the Social Contract , not this anti-social propaganda.
soyuski 1 year ago
@soyuski what about the gross misuse of power? the "contract" seems a little lopsided, us having to accept it with no other option.
allwittynamestaken 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheQuestioner132 I studied on public university. But in my country, it's the best university.
On last federal government before the current, there was a huge private education expansion. And guess what? It was bad quality education, but there a some education moguls that got billionaire on this process.
You should base your arguments on dogmas like "Private education on average costs half as much."
felo790 1 year ago
times cops protected me: 0
times cops harassed me: at least 4
phrimburger 1 year ago
I agree that focusing on repression is counter-productive, but imo common police still has a role to play and private police is somewhat corrupt if not outright feudal.
Also note that crime is correlated to the social environment, and it appears that there's more crime in the US (less tax, less social services) and less in more progressive regions with more taxes and more social services (Canada, Western Europe) . Might be a component of explanation along with other correlated factors (culture)
Rickdeckard2020 1 year ago
Not to try to dis your overall argument, but the reason only 3 people died in an old western gunfight which seems insignificant to us now is because of the technology. Guns are simply far more potent now and thus tend to result in more deaths. While policy probably has something to do with it, available technology has a very significant impact.
Bwoulf 1 year ago
and corporations pay blackwatter to kill everyone that gets in the way of profit.
aSheeple 1 year ago
Theres no reason to have police in a Anarchist society. This is the falacy that you can only rely on government. If neighbors worked together to defend each other and have communal justice. Also Ibelieve in natural justice.
Solutionstoourworld 2 years ago
Exacly!
Deadleader555 1 year ago
@Solutionstoourworld Do u mean everyone should have guns? Communal justice= lynch mob? What's natural justice? Please explain me, because I am a lawyer and never heard about that.
felo790 1 year ago
You are correct, good job & thanks for standing up for unpopular ideas!
shepardh1 2 years ago
Interestingly I'm sure cocaine tooth drops not only worked but were weak enough not to have any effects of an actual dose of cocaine (eg highness, addiction, whatever).
sharperguy 2 years ago
I'm glad I found this series. You make some very interesting, thought-provoking points, many of which I agree with. But I have a question: Is there a country that you would point to as a paragon of what you think America should become? I ask because libertarians seem to believe in the free market as panacea for just about all of our society's problems. If true, (thinking on a global scale) the free market of ideas would lead a nation to realize what you're advocating and others to copy it.
ShaneSaw83 2 years ago
In modern times there has been no such paragon, possibly because of the clout of all existing systems, and in renouncing your state you invite invasion from lesser states.
D0g63rt 2 years ago
@ShaneSaw83 Libertarians' paragon country is (was) Hong Kong.
felo790 1 year ago
...and to finish my thought, a community can pool together funds to pay for services of any sort (including police - the origins of our current system).
There is also the amazing possibility that in a truly free market system, poor communities will have better options to turn to than crime, especially compared to the options they have in our current system.
That's out of the scope of this reply, tho. Consider that the system as a whole would be fundamentally different than ours today.
ivoryjackal 2 years ago
VanDoodah
If I may, privatizing police does not preclude the emergence of volunteer units -think NYC guardian angels, who did a lot of work to clean up the city in the seventies and early eighties when the police were largely ineffective and who were subsequently demonized by the police once things seemed more under control. It also does not preclude personal protection, which is now legislated away in most places to the poorest.
ivoryjackal 2 years ago
In an anarcho-capitalist society, what would PDAs do about murderers and paedophiles who attacked people who didn't have any private defence contract.
Anarcho-capitalism sounds like a middle- and upper-class ideology to me. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course, but how would the weak and poor be able to defend themselves.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
Rich people buy Bentleys and poor people buy Toyotas...
Get the picture?
There will be PDAs for poor people.
I think a poor person that had any sense would make the acquisition of a GUN their FIRST priority though...I think that would be everyone's first priority when it comes to self defense ....
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Philly, the largest police per citizen city in the US, 95% of the time I have called the cops out, they haven't come & I live in a nice aria.
They don't even come out for writing up a report on a burglary unless you call them like 4 times, at least a few hours after feeding times.
The reason people in Philly hate them is, cops act as is they're too busy making a difference to respond to a call, yet they're nowhere to be seen, other then at diners or corner stores, just hanging out.
centercity1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Most guys posting here r kids who fear police and government. All this anarcho-shit comes from problems w autorithies and low education. They build all this fantasy beging w prepositions as "police is evil" or "taxes r extortions".
felo790 2 years ago
That's a nice ad hom there, isn't it.
I'm actually college educated and the only run-ins with the law I have/had is when I occasionally get pulled over for speeding. I'm not afraid of police at all, either.
AntonBatey 2 years ago 7
So, if u have the proper education, u should know that all premises of this videos r wrong, as it conclusion. Do u think public service (a public service that naturaly belongs to state as police) should be treated as selling consumer goods? Who will have the power on an anarch society?
felo790 2 years ago
@AntonBatey And who will be your private police? Blackwater? And how will u pay it? Taxes?
It seems you didn't learn of law and economics a lot at college. Am I wrong?
felo790 1 year ago
@AntonBatey
And I love how this person is discriminating against those that have 'low education.' As if Government schools could really provide a decent education.
FlashVirus 1 year ago
@FlashVirus I got the best education available on my country. I studied at private schools because public schools sucks here. Then I moved to public universities because it is better.
The problem of low education is ignorance. Ignorance is worst than evil, because ignorant do and speak evil and think it is good.
If u had any good education, u would know that this economic reasoning is all wrong and doesn't make sense.
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790
"this economic reasoning doesn't make any sense"
Jesus, thats all the proof in the world that you need! You convinced me. If your economic argument is as coherent as your rebuttal and grammar structure then by all means go ahead and convince anarchists how they're gravely mistaken. Hell, theres an open forum here called Mises (dot) org that you can post on and enlighten anarchists with your superior knowledge with no character-restraint (as in youtube). See ya there.
FlashVirus 1 year ago
@felo790
(Continued) And thank you for completely dodging my post and continuing to babble on about your great education.
FlashVirus 1 year ago
@AntonBatey @felo790 Also, taxation historically is exacty extortion, the first kings were in fact thieves who realised that it would be much more effective to periodically extort farmers and defend them against other robbers than to just kill and rob them. Though there are many layers of bullshit, this is basically the same today.
delboyzgzg 1 year ago
@delboyzgzg The king got to feed the soldiers and apply the law, it has a cost, got it?
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790 The king (don) got to feed his soldiers (extorters), I agree, what's your point? "Coercion is a big part of Law (the symbol of Law is a scale - justice and a sword - coercion)" -So if a country put a symbol of a pedophile raping a little kid on it's flag, that would make it ok? I'm not against coercion if someone robs or kills a man, I'm against the monopoly on coercion.
Please stop debating this issue as you are clearly too stupid to understand anarchism with your current mindset.
delboyzgzg 1 year ago
@delboyzgzg You are stupid.
Without coercion, or empire power as doctrine says, which is broader, there's no law. Got it? If a make rule - "u shall not rob me" but you are more powerful and rob me so I can't apply a sanction on you. All I can say is shame on you. Guess what? That rule - U shall not rob me - isn't a law. Without coercion, there's no law, there's no justice.
This is fairly easy, even u kids can understand this.
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790 Dear idiot.
You know nothing about the laws of supply and demand, you don't know the difference between negative (natural) law and positive law, you don't understand that the state is simply a breed between a criminal organisation and a monopolist corporation, you know nothing about economics, politics, the law or psychology, so why do you feel the need to argue about a subject you know nothing about?
You are too ignorant to be arhued with, just stop.
delboyzgzg 1 year ago
@delboyzgzg First u are retard, get a degree. And I am laweyr graduated at top school. Im just curious about psychologu, but i know a good deal of economics and politics.
Please, explain to me this positive law and negative law concept. Because in all my years of law studying, I have never seen this.
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790 Yet you can't even spell lawyer.. If you don't know the difference between positive and negative law, you are either full of shit about being a lawyer or prove my belief (or if you disagree with me, maybe you'd like to check out A. Einstein's thoughts of this?) that formal education is crap. Google it and stop embarrasing yourself.
delboyzgzg 1 year ago
@delboyzgzg Again, u r a retard. I googled negative law and I couldn't find it please explain me. Positive law has a meaning different than in my language, but it doesn't matter.
Formal education is very important. Would u have a surgey with a doctor or a tribal healer? Of course the doctor. The problem with social sciences is that everyone trust their common sense and dislike all formal knowledge produced by genertions.
Of course, if charged, u would prefer to hire a lawyer than self-defense.
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790 You know, you could call me a retard a thousand times, it doesn't make it true.
Negative (natural) law unlike positive law doesn't deal with victomless crimes, it basically means: your freedom to swing fists ends where my nose ends.
And formal education is not entirely bad, but if you read some books on mnemonic memory tricks, you'll find that formal education does nothing to improve intelligence and in fact stumps it and trains strictly right brain thought.
delboyzgzg 1 year ago
@delboyzgzg Law isnt only about crime. Imagine a law that regulates the bank-customer realtion after a big economic crysis, most of the rules there wont be about crimes but about civil-comercial relations.
If the bank owns you money, or the other way, u wont be able to grab your guns and compel the bank into giving your money , at least not in civilized society. Then u have to use the justice (public justice) to compel the bank to pay u.
Thats a simple example, ask any doubt
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790 Yes, a simple example of how regulation is helping the banks screw the customer. How did people lose their houses in the credit crunch if regulation is so great?
I'm done with this.
You're a dinosaur clinging to a dying system, but as the conformist that you are, you will adopt to anarchism once it comes, so who cares about your opinion?
It's not your own anyway, so stop channeling other people's words, we've heard them already. You're boring. GTFO
delboyzgzg 1 year ago
@delboyzgzg You didn't understand the example, bank was just for example.
How will u coerce someone to pay u a debt? Or to destroy that huge wall that is making a shadow at your garden? Or remove the car that was parked on your garages exit?
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790 A. Einstein: “Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.”
“The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.” “It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.”
P.S. If I couldn't get a libertarian or anarchist lawyer, then I would prefer self-defense.
delboyzgzg 1 year ago
@delboyzgzg I really disagree w everything you say, but I admire that you would fuck your life for your beliefs (altought, I know that when the time comes, everyone wnats to save his own ass)
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790 Where did I say that I would fuck up my life? Explain it to me, I don't understand.
delboyzgzg 1 year ago
@delboyzgzg About not getting a lawyer if he dosen't share your ideology.
Its the same thing to doctors?
felo790 1 year ago
@AntonBatey Not afraid of police? You just move to America? lol Definitely be afraid of police. The very nature of the State is to kill and enslave.
getsetrecords 1 year ago
@getsetrecords
I do live in the United States - Detroit, of all places.
AntonBatey 1 year ago
@AntonBatey Plenty of abandoned houses to squat in there, eh lol
getsetrecords 1 year ago
what WILL you do about policing, health, schooling when government runs out of money because it's frankly now already $11 trillion in debt.
domaineer 2 years ago
@domaineer How about stop waging wars?
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790 I'm actually in graduate school and have never been arrested. Thanks for your gross generalizations.
katsway20 1 year ago
@felo790 The existence of the police cannot be justified if you measure justice with liberty. Meaning where there is no liberty... there is no justice. So you cannot justify any such claims of state-funded police being justified. If I didn't restate that enough times please feel free to respond back.
jcsmtih900 1 year ago
@jcsmtih900 What u wrote above just doesn't make sense. The guys here are preaching a private police, and not no police at all.
Justifying police? That's easy: who will arrest robbers? who will investigate crimes? Just some easy examples.
About private police... this is ridicule. Everyone (who has some knowledge about public law) agree that police power (lato sensu) should be at state's hand. Private companies can't mess with my liberty.
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790 You give up liberty if you live in a society with state funded police. Private police protect the rules of your self and your property ONLY.
jcsmtih900 1 year ago
@jcsmtih900 You always give up some liberty to live in society. You have rights because others have duty, as u have duty to respect others rights.
Actually, u can have private protection in almost every country. But private police... do u want a private profit driven company investigating, persecuting,arresting, conducting search warrants etc...? And how will u pay private police? Taxes? Contract? Or they will rob criminals (or whom they think looks like a criminal)?
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790 Well no one HAS to have private police as it is after all a want and not a necessity, but unless you, yourself wants to defend your rules of your property than you can pay a private police organization.
Now you (along with myself and others) bring up that this could be somewhat sketch (as far as the "personal thugs" critique goes). This is where regulation is needed. Government regulation is and always has been a mess, so private watchdog companies would ensure justice and quality.
jcsmtih900 1 year ago
@jcsmtih900 I couldn't disagree more. Do u think Blackwater is doing a good job at Iraq?
Again, private protection is awfully different than private police. I am not just talking about protecting property, but about repressing a whole lot of crimes, as murder.
Again, how will u pay it? And those who can't afford private police? Will they be helpless? There is a lot of ethical/efficiency issues on private police.
BTW, private regulation concerning public welfare is a mess.
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790 Private Protection? Like body guards? How do you pay for police in today's society? Taxes. If you're not paying taxes you have more money. Supply and demand. Private regulation is better than government regulation anyway you put it.
jcsmtih900 1 year ago
@jcsmtih900 Guards that protect your proprety.
That's right... taxes, and how will u pay private police. Taxes too?
Private regulation isn't better for police. How a regulation that is constructed to make a company profit can be better?
Still, how will u give up some of ur liberty to a private company? Who will regulate police procedures and service quality? The shareholders? Man... this is impossible to happen in any constitutional modern society.
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790
For one you're using ad-hominems, which means you may not be secure in your own beliefs. Two, taxation is theft. If government officials had sex with girls against their will, you would still call it rape. But if government officials take money from someone at gunpoint then its 'taxation.' Look up stefbot on youtube.
FlashVirus 1 year ago
@FlashVirus I'm pretty secure. Taxation isn't theft. U use public roads, study at public shools, is protected by police... look, u live in a political organized society that is harmonized by the law. Do u think its free?
Again, I ask: would u be willing to give up your fredoom and some fundamental rights to a company? By the way, I company that you don't own a share, that can arrest you, that bear guns.
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790
"Taxation isn't theft"
Proof? What happens if you don't pay taxes? You will be sent off to jail. Like I said, if government officials courted young girls and forced marriage with them and forced them to perform sexual acts then it would still be rape. They being government officials wouldn't change anything.
And your other comments show you know nothing of anarchism. I'm going to contact you in PM and give you some websites on Voluntarysim so you may learn. (continued later)
FlashVirus 1 year ago 2
@FlashVirus The cabal proof is just reading the law, taxation isn't theft. So, if u live in a peaefull, political organized society w some basic services provided by the state, and you don't want to pay the taxes ( a duty imposed to all). Don't u think the state should use legal constraints on you?
I bet that if u provided a service, and wasn't paid, you would pick your guns and do some anarcho justice.
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790
Roads, education, militias, letter-delivery, etc.. has all been discusses numerous times here on youtube alone. Just look up "Stefbot" on youtube for some of these answers. Of course these services aren't 'free' they're funded by taxation, anarchists should how they would exist in a free society.
And @ the rights remark, you have to read the AOC and the American Constitution. We don't get our rights from the Const, we already HAD our rights, the document is merely there to enforce..
FlashVirus 1 year ago
@FlashVirus "Of course these services aren't 'free' they're funded by taxation, anarchists should how they would exist in a free society. " So taxation will exist, even on your fantasy anarcho society?
"We don't get our rights from the Const, we already HAD our rights, the document is merely there to enforce.. " Some rights are declared, they existed before. Some exist after the constitution, like voting, for example.
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790
You do realize that some of those that are Libertarians & Anarchists are people who accurately predicted the economic crises of the past decade, right? Just look up "Peter Schiff was right" on youtube. And its great that you try to psycho-analyze Anarchists instead of properly offering a rebuttal, if you really did want to take down this false theory then go to Mises or contact Stefbot on youtube and offer to debate him.
FlashVirus 1 year ago
@FlashVirus Everybody knew about the crises. But people who were earning money on stocks ( amateur investors) always tought: I can just earn a little more before everything crumbles.
I'm sorry that a psycho-analyze anarchist, because i am not a shrink. But what I see as a common feature on anarchist and libertarians is the dogma that authority is evil. Government is evil. This is highly irrational, it can only be the result of particular bad experiences.
felo790 1 year ago
@felo790 Most anarcho-capitalists I know are also moral nihilists, so I highly doubt they think government is evil since evil doesn't exist. We aren't even necessarily opposed to voluntary governing bodies over communities, which could be called government. It's the STATE that is opposed. An involuntary monopoly on force of land not tied to their labor.
theradioschizo 1 year ago
@theradioschizo Moral nihilists is the same than immoral, but they try to find arguments to justify their behavior.
The State is social creation necessary, because if the government was a company (even if everyone was a shareholder) it wouldn't work. Because companies can't coerce you. Coercion is a big part of Law (the symbol of Law is a scale - justice and a sword - coercion). Without coercion, that I'm sure that most kids here thinks is evil, Law isn't different than moral or ethics.
felo790 1 year ago
3 people die in tombstone when guns aren't allowed. Now, everybody wants to have a gun and says it's their right and it doesn't reach the news anymore. I'm not sure what you meant by that...
ReX342 2 years ago
The Compton & Watts riots example was the most stupid thing that's ever been said.
blacknosugarnocream 2 years ago
BTW, Imagine if this shit society that u advocate. Now, imagine that I own my own police (hahahaha this is riddiculous). Some shady-character wants to donate me 5 million dollars. As a free-entrepreneur I can accept that. Why shouldnt I accept that?
Thats a single and simple (so u tards can understand) of the ethic and morality behind public services. Police is not private protection and, of course, not a fast food service. Get real guys.
felo790 2 years ago
Just to add my company slogan: "The cheapest price around". "Full beatdown in 5 minutes or your protection moneys back". "If a cop arrest you, send a check and his name and he will be fired!"
felo790 2 years ago
Police don't protect anyone, and if they do, it's because of that particular cop's outstanding character. All they do is deter a few people from committing certain crimes, and throw a bunch of people into the legal system to generate revenue for the state.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
"legal system to generate revenue for the state. " U retard, it cost the state to mantain someone in prision.
felo790 2 years ago
police protection is nothing more than brutal force protecting those who pay. "TAX PAYERS" does not mean you will be protected.
befranklintoo 2 years ago
Police protects everyone. Police wont deny protection because someone is charged of tax evasion.
felo790 2 years ago
"Police protects everyone."
Yeah, except for the people they beat, harass, coerce, kill... oh, and fail to protect.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
New York police lowered crime by 70% w zero tolerance tatics. But it costed a lot.
San Diego on the other hand lowered crime in 70% percent using comunity police. W less cost and of course less police violence.
Before saying naything to police try to find out what is a crime.
felo790 2 years ago
And to finish, its not a private service sold by the state using monopoly, its a power working, a state duty, prerrogative of a peaceful society.
When the guy who made the video draws this basic economic chart, he demonstrates not only lack of basic economic knowldge, but also lack of law and social science. Lots of private polices working in the same jurisdiction, w profit as goals, lowering its prices to people who want to pay.... Grow up, u retards, get a degree, get a shrink
felo790 2 years ago
Instead of acting like a child, why don't you actually try to be respectful? That's what AntonBatey is doing, you should try it. Calling someone a "stupid fool" (which sounds like middle english btw) a retard and a kid isn't promoting open debate, it's flaming.
You're acting like a kid, and calling us kids. That's called hypocrisy. Grow up.
Unless you really want to know the answer to your questions, don't post on this video or others like it.
Tyler5794 2 years ago
I spent time to explain some basics to this 787, like crime and law (my expertise). And the kid didnt understand and refuted it w arguments drawn from its imagiantion (like organized crime exists because the state, the was something like the earth is flat). I love to talk (and respect) people that has different points of view than me, but a good argument must have a solid base, and this kid has no base at all and was arrogant not to question my arguments but to refute it his own imagination.
felo790 2 years ago
Nothing that you say makes any sense or is backed up with real-world evidence. None of it logically follows anything that we know about human interaction and economics. You tell people they sound like idiots while sounding like the world's largest yourself.
It's telling that when I present a challenge to your opinion, you ignore my challenge and simply repeat yourself. Creationists do this all the time. You wouldn't happen to be a theist, would you?
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Just to explain to u kids. Police is draws its powers from the executice power (3 power theory). It does a genuinely public service - administrative police and judicial police. Judicial police (private protection is similar to admistrative police) is investigating and instructing criminal process, as well carrying orders from other autorithies (like the judge). So there no way to exist a judicial private police, no private can broke into do search and prision warrants, as well bugging phones.
felo790 2 years ago
"Police is draws its powers from the executice power"
So someone writes on a piece of paper, "there shall be police to assert authority over the 'free' people of the United States" and some random people sign that piece of paper, and now suddenly the police have authority over citizens? How does that work exactly? What is the mechanism behind this magic piece of paper that somehow grants citizen A authority over citizen B?
Police get their power from the use of violence.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Your r one of the most ignorant, arrogant, dumb kids I know. U cant understand basic concepts as legitimacy, law, freedom and crime. As I already told I got a extensive science backgorund at the best univeristies around here and all that I wrote here is basic thing u will learn at the start of univerity education. So finish high school, get some education and then, u can start talking about politics without making a fool of yourself.
felo790 2 years ago
Brainwashed.
domaineer 2 years ago
By the way, I've noticed you don't spend much time actually talking about the topic being discussed. No, you just make a bunch of random claims and then switch topics after I respond and demonstrate how utterly wrong you are. You're talking about your academic credentials and the languages that you speak instead of making any inkling of a counterargument whatsoever. Not to mention you've freely admitted that your a homicidal maniac. I'm not sure I need to continue this discussion anymore.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
*you're, argh.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
All this anarchy argument hasnt a single piece of research behind it. It develops around the point government is evil, which is not a good point to start a bold (ultra-bold) statement on police. I am not a homicide maniac. U dont understand a shit about basic economy. U dont know what public law is, so its hard for u to understand the rights and duties of public institutions.
felo790 2 years ago
There has been a lot written about anarchy. There are historical examples. I'm not sure why you'd claim there's "not a single piece of research" about it, since that's so clearly wrong.
Anarchy doesn't claim that government is evil. It claims that government is illegitimate. Anarchy means that no one person or group of people forces control over anyone else. You really are NOT grasping what anarchy actually is.
Anything that public institutions can do, privates can do better.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
I know that lot has been written, but most people as you didnt read it. "It claims that government is illegitimate" - Wrong. All power comes from the people, and people can elect it representative.
"Anything that public institutions can do, privates can do better." Wrong. Where do u get this tought? This is damn wrong. I dont want to pay protection money to private police (whoops... seems a mafia thing). The coercitive power should be used only by state and not private companies
felo790 2 years ago
"All power comes from the people, and people can elect it representative."
Well that's just completely incorrect. The power comes from the guns they use. If they did not have guns, nobody would abide by their rules.
"Where do u get this tought?"
From basic economics and free-market examples. It's a fact that the services government provides become bloated and less efficient, costing more and providing less than what an equivalent private vendor could provide.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
"I dont want to pay protection money to private police (whoops... seems a mafia thing)."
You already pay for police protection with taxes, but because it's forced on you, you don't have the freedom to choose to pay for a different provider of that service. So not only is it monopolistic, but it's also cartelized. Yep, sounds exactly like the mob. Funny, given how often politicians actually have mob ties.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago 2
U have to pay taxes. thats basic civilization. If u can afford, u can pay ur private protection too (not police, cause private police doesnt exist, because police is a state function).
"So not only is it monopolistic, but it's also cartelized" - U dont know whats a monopoly and have no idea whats a cartel. U lack the basic economics. One more time, there no police monopoly, because theres no police market, and will never be. Monopoly is when there one seller for the whole market. Got it?
felo790 2 years ago
"U have to pay taxes. thats basic civilization."
No it's not, it's extortion. Civilization is allowing people to live peaceably together. Taxation is stealing money using the threat of violence. There is nothing civil about it.
"there no police monopoly, because theres no police market"
That's the definition of a monopoly: cornering the market and eliminating competition. There isn't a market because the government has eliminated it. It is the only seller. How are you this dense?
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago 2
Stupid fool. Market is where sellers meet buyers. Not police case. U can pay private protection, rich people here pay it. But dont think private protection is similar to police work.
I could write a whole article about this, cause this is easy and i am about to join the feds. But u dont seem to have any college education at all. So I will waste my time and writing here is not that easy for me (enlish is my second language). So try to fix by yourself ur twisted ideas.
felo790 2 years ago
"Market is where sellers meet buyers."
A market is not a place or a thing, it is human interaction, that's all. The interaction taking place is someone is paying for a service (police). This should make sense, since people already pay for police service, but they have no choice other than to pay for the government's version of it.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
So government keeps prices high so it can profit a lot and give it as dividends to its shareholders.... U r incredible stupid. Go to school.
felo790 2 years ago
"I know that lot has been written, but most people as you didnt read it."
You didn't claim that no one read it (which is false at any rate), you claimed that no one researched it. Which is also, still, spectacularly false.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Just one last tought... organized crime existed before police. Just take a look at italian mobs (Comorra, ndrangheta, and etc.). A kid saying police created organized crime is a non-sense.
felo790 2 years ago
There's no business in organized crime unless the state makes something illegal. Al Capone couldn't have run a bootlegging racket had prohibition not been enacted. The things that YOU'RE saying are ridiculous.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Ur fuckin stupid. A crime is a crime because of the law (normative theory). But if u permit robbery, killing and kidnapping, organized crime want be organized crime it will be just an organization that practices robbery, killing and kidnapping. All u retards think the only crime out there is drugs? Tha whole arguments behind this is bs from a kids imagination. The whole argument behind me is like 500 years of scientific development.
felo790 2 years ago
"A crime is a crime because of the law"
And I'm the stupid one? A crime is a crime because it is injurious to another person. Smoking weed is not a crime just because there is a law against it. Bad laws are all over the place.
What you're completely and spectacularly failing to grasp is that crimes would not go unpunished in an anarchic society; there just wouldn't be a state doing the punishing, that's all.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
"Theres no crime before previous law". U can find it on any modern constitution. By the way, I am a criminal lawyer, and I wont teach u law, so go to a library and stuydy.
felo790 2 years ago
Yeah, sure you are, and I'm an astronaut! Thanks for the laugh! They taught you how to spell and form sentences REALLY well in law school, didn't they? Perhaps you didn't "stuydy" enough!
"law can be enforced."
Put a gun against someone's head and you can enforce those other things in the exact same way. The government uses violence to enforce laws, so there's no difference at all.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
I study a lot. English is my second language. Maybe u prefer protuguese (my first) or spanish. I can write in italian too (but I suck at it, only basics). By the way u shoud learn the basics of law, economics and other social science.
felo790 2 years ago
By the way. I advocate drug liberalization. But even then, we have to build hospitals and mad-house for everyone (no company will build it to treat broken adiicts). And how will we build that? Taxes, heavy taxes.
felo790 2 years ago
excellent thoughts. Lasse Faire all the way!
cmcphee 2 years ago
Your'e a moron. Without a government there would be no laws to enforce. Police protection would just become my hired thugs against your hired thugs.
marosci 2 years ago
You should actually watch the video...
AntonBatey 2 years ago
people could enforce common law more effectively if the government didn't have a monopoly on "protection"... or something like that.... it probably wouldn't be much different than it is now. most people wouldn't just sit by and watch their neighbors get raped and robbed. so people might do the "police work" themselves. it wouldn't be perfect, but neither is the system we have now.
TheDastardlyDildo 2 years ago
"people could enforce common law more effectively" Hurrah to lynch mobs and billions of guns! Sorry pal, we have civilization and laws. If u dont like it, get used to it, or go to jail.
felo790 2 years ago
it could still be civilized without government.
TheDastardlyDildo 2 years ago
Who will have the power on a stateless society? A fool can say everyone. Everyone will have a gun (american way), and there will be fewers law to break so... no one will break it. But the truth is the power will concetrate on the hands of few who already have the power (economic power- the capitalists). Then will have minarchies, local warlords. The state as we know it is fruit of french revolution, a way to make laws stronger than monarchs whim.
felo790 2 years ago
local warlords? like governors, mayors etc? why shouldn't people have the option to separate themselves from the state? why shouldn't people have the choice to live their lives without being forced to fund a government that they don't want?
TheDastardlyDildo 2 years ago
Because its the law! Why cant father leave their kids? Because theres law. Why cant I kil evey fuckin moron that I met? Because theres law. Do u have a problem w law?
felo790 2 years ago
"Why cant I kil evey fuckin moron that I met? Because theres law."
Well, just because you're a completely despicable piece of shit doesn't mean the rest of us are. Most of US don't kill because we think killing is wrong. Not because an arbitrary law exists.
Saying that the only reason you don't kill people is because there is a law is like saying that the only reason you're a good person is because some random ancient story book (like the Bible) exists. Makes no sense at all.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago 2
The difference between law and other codes (ethics, moral etc..) is that law can be enforced.
"Most of US don't kill because we think killing is wrong" - So free all killer in US and say to them that they did wrong.
felo790 2 years ago
You need me to spell it out for you? Okay then.
Of the people that don't murder, most of them refrain from doing so because they think it is wrong. So obviously the statement allows for the occasional nut job who finds nothing wrong with murdering and does it anyway. The only difference between them and you, apparently, is that you stop yourself because a law exists. Sane people stop themselves because it is wrong.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
@marosci Why would someone who protects your personal property rules be a thug? Fucking idiot.
jcsmtih900 1 year ago
in every policed society there will always be a certain amount of chaos
allotted to keep the majority "law abiding"
citizen (believing) they need a policed
society, i fall into the libertarian category,
lets get back to the origanal laws our
four fathers set forth ! if there is blood
on your hands towards innocence,
then your blood shall be spilled ! period
digzie1 2 years ago
I understand the concept of that supply and demand left to naturally decide the amount of police would do a better job, but who would pay for it in a taxless stateless society?
SpecialFester 2 years ago
The reason it gets more expensive in US while get less protection is not mainly because it costs more but due to the bought political influence of capital, one you decrease taxes you will have less resources, once you decrease education you will have less problem ruling the mob, once you reached that far you can continue the spiral of propaganda - ruling by fear where the society values greed over human rights & a stage where you either limit money's political influence or crash.
lassek85 2 years ago 2
Plice protection will be more expensive with state monoploy. SO fucking wrong. State goal isnt profit. Corps goal is profit. Imagine lots of milicia armed charging u protection money. This anarchism shit exist only on US. (it exist outside US by only on small dissocial groups) Why? Why americans mistrust their government so much?
felo790 2 years ago
Gee, maybe bc our gov't is a bunch of thugs who lie regularly? Also, you did nothing to disprove cs' assertion that state monopolies increase the price. Private defense is simple, police , not bound by geography will compete for customers. They won't "rule" anything. They'll be the same people as modern police, but won't harass you, break down your door for pot, bc you can just go to their competitors. There are several other options
/watch?v=E6ibh113DuI
/watch?v=vLp2y-kwUr0
/watch?v=Ra9R0hXL-z8
111thedude111 2 years ago
because we have the freedom and responsibility to do so in this country. the state here (at least in my area) ticket motorists the most at the end of the month to meet the monthly budget. they create crimes and usurious fines and fees to balance the budget. it wasn't that way 30 years ago but it is now!
flameretarder 2 years ago
The state in your area is violating the basics of financial law. This doesnt happen here ( I live in 3rd world)
felo790 2 years ago
What a crap. Private police? And what happens to those that cant afford private police?
felo790 2 years ago
Question? do you believe that Democracy has failed....or do you believe that our great Democracy has been infiltrated by the enemy and is destroying Democracy from within the Federal Gov. ?Cuz I believe that the SS Nazis are alive and well regrouped into the 4th Riech.....other wise known as the US Federal Gov.....IRS, Fed Reserve....etc.....Democracy cant be blamed for the 120 year infiltration of sick and twisted royals and german Nazis.........
44774477ric 2 years ago
thumbs up to 44774477ric! Just saw Bill Mahr do an interview with the author of "The Family" and he's basically uncovering the story of this group of people who call themselves "The Family" - they work at high levels within gov't and wall-street and they simply believe they are "chosen by God" to rule over the earth. Pretty fracking insane, but it's real...
Aspetta17 2 years ago
youre an idiot
TheRedneckJunkie 2 years ago
your a redneckjunkie....nuff said
44774477ric 2 years ago
not in reality just on the internet ; )
TheRedneckJunkie 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good arguments my friend
cookiekoen 2 years ago
Comment removed
cookiekoen 2 years ago
are you suggesting a privatized police force?
halfaddict 2 years ago
I don't know about you but I'd be scared shitless of an anarchist society where drugs are legal and the police force was privatized. It'd be like dozens of "Black Water" organizations, bought out by the rich, of course - drug lords teaming up with corporate giants in the interest of profiteering.. I can see it quickly descending into urban drug-wars, but where it's all basically LEGALIZED LOL :) I mean you can legalize criminal activity, but will legalization necessarily reform a criminal mind?
Aspetta17 2 years ago
All you have to do is watch robocop haha..
Thats what a privatized police force would do.
halfaddict 2 years ago
It is impossible to have this work without a state, because a community is a state, not anarchy. You mention a community purchasing police protection around :31, which represents a state. And, furthermore, assuming that in true anarchy individuals are the only entities capable of paying for protection services, there would be a great deal of market failure (as not everyone could purchase protection) similar to modern health insurance schemes.
m89cj 2 years ago
Strong arguments, though a police-less large urban environment hasn't exist as far as I know, and I expect that any social experiment removing them would cause some pretty extensive violent and selfish behaviour... at least at first.
That being said, I do think that In a society where everyone can effectively protect themselves (legalized firearms and all associated forms of protection) this would probably work in the long term.
Another great video!
oneofthefew82 2 years ago
There's a problem in your model: "any increase in price will cause them to lose profit" . But the State is technically a non-profit organization. The State is a corrupted organization, but THE SOURCE of all corruption in Washington is THE PRIVATE SECTOR - that's where the MONEY IS COMING FROM that's where the bribes are coming from. I don't see how handing civic duties over to the problematic world of greed and profiteerism is going to solve anything...
Aspetta17 2 years ago
Communism anyone?
uhaegde2wiceover 2 years ago
I wasn't implying that communism is the answer. I'm just saying anarchism is not the answer either. Actually I am against extremism altogether. I believe in something like limited decentralized government, with a single-tax (land value taxation), and I believe the market should be a blend of natural and money economies. I don't like extreme wealth, extreme poverty, extreme anarchism, extreme communism - NO EXTREMES for me, thanks LOL :)
Aspetta17 2 years ago
Totally and completely correct sir! My God! We have been domesticated so!
uhaegde2wiceover 2 years ago
People don't realise that the state police force is only recent. Around 100-200 years ago. Before then? Basically private protection or arbiters.
anglaismoyen 2 years ago
i have respect for your POV. Unfortunately, i just took a microeconomics course, and this is unjustified classification of those principles... come up with some hard evidence, and maybe the republicans (and myself) wont laugh so hard.
BabyMaple1 2 years ago
To be fair police presence alone has probably saved or helped alot of us, without our knowlege. Nevertheless, I agree with their many failings, due to the interests of 'us' and 'them', whoever that happens to be at the time. What you suggest however, leaves me torn. I like your logic. Despite this I can't help thinking that the result would be a series of ephemeral city states. War lords writ large really. Maybe this is better? If so, too bad. Please respond if you feel so inclined. thnx
SocialAnathema 2 years ago
Just the mere knowledge that there is indeed police out there that will incarcerate them if they violate social norms is enough to deter 98% of the population from committing crimes.
So yes, we've all indirectly benefited from police presence. People don't obey laws because of moral values or beliefs, they comply because they have the fear of incarceration/execution. Fear is the greatest motivator of all.
elsamuraiguapo 2 years ago
This is a rubbish and ridiculous misunderstanding of the nature of society.
mikontisot 2 years ago
'no go zone uk' nothing on Google on this.
ajuk1 2 years ago
BS.
Try look at the very top of the search result page.
alphafirewolf 2 years ago
I like the mild mild west because it's about time we heard that. That America loves such a phony image so that we always think our "freedom" is under threat at anytime they like to say so.
metalschooldrill 2 years ago