Can anyone tell me about Politics....

[Ray From Cleveland]

People could form their own militia, Private Security could be hired to patrol neighborhoods(Like they do now), and without the Government infringing on our right to defend ourselves,

Outside of gated communities, what neighborhood has hired private security to patrol their area?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

People could form their own militia, Private Security could be hired to patrol neighborhoods(Like they do now), and without the Government infringing on our right to defend ourselves,

Outside of gated communities, what neighborhood has hired private security to patrol their area?

Just as one example, there are neighborhoods in Seattle with Private Security. There's an entire industry for this. Amazingly, with Government infringing on people's right to defend themselves, and Road Pirates taking an average of 15 minutes to arrive, there's even more incentive for this sort of thing. Of course, regulations and an unsustainable fiat currency make it more expensive than it would be, but they're still half the price and twice as effective as Road Pirates.
Texas Town Gets Rid of Police Dept., Hires 'SEAL Security' — Guess What Reportedly Happened to Crime
A town that hired Seal Security had a drop of 61% in their crime rate.
This, of course, makes sense. They're not working for an organization which claims legitimate use of the initiation of force, they have to worry about losing their jobs, because as anyone who isn't an economic illiterate would know, having a monopoly on anything is bad. This means, naturally, replacing Police with Private Security would result in a more effective and less costly product.

EDIT:

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

People could form their own militia, Private Security could be hired to patrol neighborhoods(Like they do now), and without the Government infringing on our right to defend ourselves,

Outside of gated communities, what neighborhood has hired private security to patrol their area?

Just as one example, there are neighborhoods in Seattle with Private Security. There's an entire industry for this. Amazingly, with Government infringing on people's right to defend themselves, and Road Pirates taking an average of 15 minutes to arrive, there's even more incentive for this sort of thing. Of course, regulations and an unsustainable fiat currency make it more expensive than it would be, but they're still half the price and twice as effective as Road Pirates.
Texas Town Gets Rid of Police Dept., Hires 'SEAL Security' — Guess What Reportedly Happened to Crime
A town that hired Seal Security had a drop of 61% in their crime rate.
This, of course, makes sense. They're not working for an organization which claims legitimate use of the initiation of force, they have to worry about losing their jobs, because as anyone who isn't an economic illiterate would know, having a monopoly on anything is bad. This means, naturally, replacing Police with Private Security would result in a more effective and less costly product.

EDIT:

You have to be careful about what you read. Even in the piece you provided, it clearly states these are not police officers. They don't have the authority or training to arrest people, and they never replaced the police department. They are (what we call) wannabe cops and have no more authority than they do being a security guard at your wedding or amusement park. Furthermore the crime was dropping at a fast pace before these people were contracted.

Not so fast: Cops fired, private security hired, crime plummets in Sharpstown?

 

[Flopper]

I find it hard to believe that citizens armed with shotguns, rifles, and pistols would be any match for a professional army with tanks, backed up with air power and artillery. China would be in this country in a blink of an eye just to get our petroleum.

I guess we're just going to totally ignore the fact that;
1: Technology available to a Government is fully available to "regular people", it had to be invented and constructed by regular people, therefor regular people are equally capable of producing the same things. In fact, most military equipment is produced by private industry because the Government has no resources aside from what it steals.
2: That things such as tanks and aircraft are impractical in urban environments anyway.
3: That such things don't matter when you're so heavily outnumbered and have no clear target you're fighting against. They would be invading a foreign land from across the freaking ocean, and would be surrounded by millions of people that don't want them there.
4: There's zero incentive to invade, they can just trade for it.
5: If it's more effective, the people can organize a militia, and it would be better equipped and cheaper than a Government Military.
6: Shotguns and Rifles is a strawman, the only reason people don't currently have things such as RPGs and missile launchers is because there would be collateral damage when firing. If they were needed, people could easily produce and obtain them.

Of course, I'm not surprised that a Statist can only think in terms of warmongering, your precious Government has been instigating wars since its inception.

This country like a number of other nations were formed for mutual defense. We've added a lot of stuff besides defense but defense is the basic reason for the nation and the government. Without the government to focus all divergent interest into defending the nation, the country would fall to a foreign power in no time at all.

False, this Nation was initially formed to escape a tyrannical ruler, and then it became a tyrannical ruler. If it was formed for defense, it would be a Militia, because a Militia is formed by the people, and served the people. They are cheaper, better armed, and more effective.

A Government is absolutely not formed for defense, because all they do is oppress the people and start wars with other Governments. How many World Wars would there be without Government? Freaking none.

The basic problem with anarchy is that the whole is stronger than all the parts because the parts will not act in unison to meet a global problem. The only way you can get all parts working together to accomplish a goal is with a centralize power which can make it happen. Thus we are back to some kind of goverment.

You're, once again, ignorantly pretending that people can't organize themselves, despite all evidence to the contrary. Businesses and other organizations are examples of people organizing themselves.
History | Historic US Route 6 Iowa
Or the farmers that built a road in a single hour because they needed it. Another example would be Kickstarter, people organizing to pay for something because they decided that they want it. The idea that people can only organize under a territorial monopoly on arbitration is flat-out ignorance.

The REAL fact is that if people needed to organize for something, they would do so voluntarily, out of necessity or desire. Authority isn't required because it would be in the individual's own self-interest to do so, and theft, murder, kidnapping, coercion, wouldn't be required in order to do so. These statements you're making have already been refuted thousands of times, you just never bothered to do the research on it, you just accept the words of your masters in Government as fact without bothering to investigate for yourself.

Thanks for an interesting discussion on anarchy. When you figure out how to protect the nation from a nuclear or conventional weapons attack with no goverment and no armed forces, get back to me.

Before saying something blatantly retarded, maybe you should ask yourself whether or not you'd be willing to pay for it. If the answer is yes, then there's profit incentive. If there's profit incentive as a result of demand, and people are willing to pay for it, there's a market for it.

If only you could figure out how the market worked, you would have answered this question yourself.

People could form their own militia, Private Security could be hired to patrol neighborhoods(Like they do now), and without the Government infringing on our right to defend ourselves, they could be armed with the most effective equipment available. Unlike the Road Pirates, they'd actually be working for us, and would be half the price, and twice as effective, AND would have actual competition.

Also, I'd like to once again remind you that these questions have already been answered thousands of times, in thousands of different ways. You just choose not to do any research yourself because your Lord and Savior, Government, has already told you what to think.

I sort of doubt that the neighborhood watches would be very effective against a trained military force invading the nation. Corporate American would join the enemy in a blink of the eye in pursuit of profit.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You have to be careful about what you read. Even in the piece you provided, it clearly states these are not police officers.

That's the entire point, how did that fly right over your head? They're better BECAUSE of that fact, that prevents them from being a monopoly, makes them cheaper, and more effective.

They don't have the authority or training to arrest people, and they never replaced the police department.

Authority is an illusion, and the belief in it is exactly why the economy is in shambles, we're slaves to the State, and Police are allowed to kidnap, murder, and rob people. I also find it hilarious that you're claiming they don't have the training; What about the Road Pirates somehow automatically makes them "trained" to save lives that nobody without the uniform and religious rituals are incapable of attaining? Do they not gun down enough people in cold blood, or steal enough money, or imprison enough people that haven't initiated force against anyone?

They are (what we call) wannabe cops and have no more authority than they do being a security guard at your wedding or amusement park. Furthermore the crime was dropping at a fast pace before these people were contracted.

Not so fast: Cops fired, private security hired, crime plummets in Sharpstown?

Again, that's the entire point. Police being a monopoly and having the illusion of authority is what allows them to get away with robbing, kidnapping, and murdering people, and some of the reasons that Private Security is better.

You're unironically arguing that having a monopoly is better.

That article(From an incredibly biased source, by the way) also admits that Robberies dropped, and that Police weren't on patrol anymore, that basically means they're sitting on their hands, since calls were going to the Private Security, and the Road Pirates weren't patrolling. What would that leave them doing?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I find it hard to believe that citizens armed with shotguns, rifles, and pistols would be any match for a professional army with tanks, backed up with air power and artillery. China would be in this country in a blink of an eye just to get our petroleum.

I guess we're just going to totally ignore the fact that;
1: Technology available to a Government is fully available to "regular people", it had to be invented and constructed by regular people, therefor regular people are equally capable of producing the same things. In fact, most military equipment is produced by private industry because the Government has no resources aside from what it steals.
2: That things such as tanks and aircraft are impractical in urban environments anyway.
3: That such things don't matter when you're so heavily outnumbered and have no clear target you're fighting against. They would be invading a foreign land from across the freaking ocean, and would be surrounded by millions of people that don't want them there.
4: There's zero incentive to invade, they can just trade for it.
5: If it's more effective, the people can organize a militia, and it would be better equipped and cheaper than a Government Military.
6: Shotguns and Rifles is a strawman, the only reason people don't currently have things such as RPGs and missile launchers is because there would be collateral damage when firing. If they were needed, people could easily produce and obtain them.

Of course, I'm not surprised that a Statist can only think in terms of warmongering, your precious Government has been instigating wars since its inception.

This country like a number of other nations were formed for mutual defense. We've added a lot of stuff besides defense but defense is the basic reason for the nation and the government. Without the government to focus all divergent interest into defending the nation, the country would fall to a foreign power in no time at all.

False, this Nation was initially formed to escape a tyrannical ruler, and then it became a tyrannical ruler. If it was formed for defense, it would be a Militia, because a Militia is formed by the people, and served the people. They are cheaper, better armed, and more effective.

A Government is absolutely not formed for defense, because all they do is oppress the people and start wars with other Governments. How many World Wars would there be without Government? Freaking none.

The basic problem with anarchy is that the whole is stronger than all the parts because the parts will not act in unison to meet a global problem. The only way you can get all parts working together to accomplish a goal is with a centralize power which can make it happen. Thus we are back to some kind of goverment.

You're, once again, ignorantly pretending that people can't organize themselves, despite all evidence to the contrary. Businesses and other organizations are examples of people organizing themselves.
History | Historic US Route 6 Iowa
Or the farmers that built a road in a single hour because they needed it. Another example would be Kickstarter, people organizing to pay for something because they decided that they want it. The idea that people can only organize under a territorial monopoly on arbitration is flat-out ignorance.

The REAL fact is that if people needed to organize for something, they would do so voluntarily, out of necessity or desire. Authority isn't required because it would be in the individual's own self-interest to do so, and theft, murder, kidnapping, coercion, wouldn't be required in order to do so. These statements you're making have already been refuted thousands of times, you just never bothered to do the research on it, you just accept the words of your masters in Government as fact without bothering to investigate for yourself.

Thanks for an interesting discussion on anarchy. When you figure out how to protect the nation from a nuclear or conventional weapons attack with no goverment and no armed forces, get back to me.

Before saying something blatantly retarded, maybe you should ask yourself whether or not you'd be willing to pay for it. If the answer is yes, then there's profit incentive. If there's profit incentive as a result of demand, and people are willing to pay for it, there's a market for it.

If only you could figure out how the market worked, you would have answered this question yourself.

People could form their own militia, Private Security could be hired to patrol neighborhoods(Like they do now), and without the Government infringing on our right to defend ourselves, they could be armed with the most effective equipment available. Unlike the Road Pirates, they'd actually be working for us, and would be half the price, and twice as effective, AND would have actual competition.

Also, I'd like to once again remind you that these questions have already been answered thousands of times, in thousands of different ways. You just choose not to do any research yourself because your Lord and Savior, Government, has already told you what to think.

I sort of doubt that neighborhood watches would be very effective against a trained military force invading the nation.

So, which fallacious argument are you making?

That Private Security can't be trained for some reason, that they somehow don't have access to the same technology, or that people will just ignore a literal invasion by another force that wants to re-enslave them?

Because I've already refuted all of that, and now you've completely ceased addressing any single part of my argument. Is it because you know you're wrong, since you're basically just arguing Special Pleading? Do you think being employed by the Government, making them a monopoly with no incentive to please any customers, somehow makes these basic people better than a profit-driven industry that must please its customers to survive?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's the entire point, how did that fly right over your head? They're better BECAUSE of that fact, that prevents them from being a monopoly, makes them cheaper, and more effective.

As the old saying goes, you get what you pay for.

They are not better because they have minimal training and no authority. If you were in a hostage situation with a guy holding a gun against your head, would you want a rent-a-cop to be the person in charge or a highly trained police officer?

Authority is an illusion, and the belief in it is exactly why the economy is in shambles, we're slaves to the State, and Police are allowed to kidnap, murder, and rob people. I also find it hilarious that you're claiming they don't have the training; What about the Road Pirates somehow automatically makes them "trained" to save lives that nobody without the uniform and religious rituals are incapable of attaining? Do they not gun down enough people in cold blood, or steal enough money, or imprison enough people that haven't initiated force against anyone?

Authority is not an illusion. We the people give the authority to our police to enforce laws and protect us. You can't possibly do that without authority. Otherwise the criminals would just laugh at you. Police are not allowed to kidnap, murder or rob people. WTF did you get that from?

Police have the authority to arrest people when needed. They have the authority to use their firearm for protection and nothing more. They aren't robbing anybody. I have no idea where you dream this stuff up at. Most police have recordings of their entire day, and many people today have pocket video cameras and hidden cameras on businesses and homes.

If a police officer is found to use aggressive force or illegal force, they are held accountable. They face grand juries, judges, and some have been convicted and sent to prison like any other criminal. But again, very rare.

 

[Flopper]

In that case, would you please explain what you think would happen if all government in the US was eliminated.

Competition would be at an all-time high, prices would be at an all-time low, innovation would drastically accelerate due to the Government no longer impeding it. Everyone would do what's in their own self-interest, and with Government no longer attempting to monopolize gun ownership, attempting to initiate force against anyone would be significantly higher in risk, especially due to better purchasing power, since people would stop exchanging in the US Dollar.

Anything the Government does that there's a demand for would be provided by private businesses and paid for voluntarily. Road Pirates/Police would be completely replaced by self defense and Private Security, which is cheaper and more effective than Road Pirates/Police, who take 15 minutes on average to arrive, and don't even work for us.

If this doesn't answer your question, maybe you should ask more specific things, since this question is incredibly broad.

And how long do you think it would take other countries like Russia or China to drop two or three hundred thousands troops in the US to restore order and goverment. That would happen probably just before Russia marched through Europe since NATO would collapse without US support.

I guess it would take until China's fascist leaders shove their heads so far up their ass that they think an armed America, with no Gun Restrictions, would just lay down and let them. The capability of organizing does not disappear with Government, restraint does. All those guns, all that technology, and all of those people don't just evaporate, the evil force preventing us from defending ourselves does. If China is so willing and ready to send "three-hundred thousand" people to their deaths, I suppose that's their decision. Of course, that's the assumption that there would even be a fight, since people wouldn't be fighting the Government anymore, if they show up and attempt to take over America, they'd have no way to force us all to comply, since technology would continue to exist that allows us to trade around the Government. They'd be straight wasting their time.

I suppose the funniest part of this anti-thought you're exhibiting would be that you believe there's any one singular thing to be fighting against, for them. If the US Government collapses, it won't be from violent revolution, it'll be from innovations which prevent them from continuing to interfere in our ability to freely exchange. With the creation of things like Crypto Currency and 3D printers, their ability to interfere is already disappearing. If they attempt to initiate force against the new free society, they'd just be encouraging the 327-million people living here to defend themselves. No army in the world outnumbers the general populace, the only thing which allows them to maintain control is the illusion of authority.

I find it hard to believe that citizens armed with shotguns, rifles, and pistols would be any match for a professional army with tanks, backed up with air power and artillery. China would be in this country in a blink of an eye just to get our petroleum.

This country like a number of other nations were formed for mutual defense. We've added a lot of stuff besides defense but defense is the basic reason for the nation and the government. Without the government to focus all divergent interest into defending the nation, the country would fall to a foreign power in no time at all.

The basic problem with anarchy is that the whole is stronger than all the parts because the parts will not act in unison to meet a global problem. The only way you can get all parts working together to accomplish a goal is with a centralize power which can make it happen. Thus we are back to some kind of goverment.

How many American solders have we lost in the middle-east over religious anarchists? You don't give people credit for being able to defend themselves. If you were in charge of a country that wanted to invade another, would you have more concerns of an armed citizenry or a disarmed citizenry? We can't stop our own people from killing multitudes of other people, but a foreign invasion can?

If you're asking would an armed citizenry in the US be a problem for an invading army, the answer is of course, Yes. If you're asking would an armed citizenry dissuade a military power such as Russia or China from invading a nation of strategic importance such as the US with no goverment or centralized military, the answer is obviously No.

There is a huge difference between citizens owning guns and a organized military force with centralized control and planning. If America experienced an invasion today with no armed forces for defense, it would bear little resemblance to Lexington and Concord in 1775, with well-disciplined minutemen assembling on the town square to defend liberty against the redcoats. It would more likely be a larger scale reenactment of the of the revolt in Kansas between 1854 to 1861, when small bands of armed patriots unleashed an orgy of violence, unbounded by any laws of war or human decency in which the citizenry suffered as much as enemy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Competition would be at an all-time high, prices would be at an all-time low, innovation would drastically accelerate due to the Government no longer impeding it. Everyone would do what's in their own self-interest, and with Government no longer attempting to monopolize gun ownership, attempting to initiate force against anyone would be significantly higher in risk, especially due to better purchasing power, since people would stop exchanging in the US Dollar.

Anything the Government does that there's a demand for would be provided by private businesses and paid for voluntarily. Road Pirates/Police would be completely replaced by self defense and Private Security, which is cheaper and more effective than Road Pirates/Police, who take 15 minutes on average to arrive, and don't even work for us.

If this doesn't answer your question, maybe you should ask more specific things, since this question is incredibly broad.

And how long do you think it would take other countries like Russia or China to drop two or three hundred thousands troops in the US to restore order and goverment. That would happen probably just before Russia marched through Europe since NATO would collapse without US support.

I guess it would take until China's fascist leaders shove their heads so far up their ass that they think an armed America, with no Gun Restrictions, would just lay down and let them. The capability of organizing does not disappear with Government, restraint does. All those guns, all that technology, and all of those people don't just evaporate, the evil force preventing us from defending ourselves does. If China is so willing and ready to send "three-hundred thousand" people to their deaths, I suppose that's their decision. Of course, that's the assumption that there would even be a fight, since people wouldn't be fighting the Government anymore, if they show up and attempt to take over America, they'd have no way to force us all to comply, since technology would continue to exist that allows us to trade around the Government. They'd be straight wasting their time.

I suppose the funniest part of this anti-thought you're exhibiting would be that you believe there's any one singular thing to be fighting against, for them. If the US Government collapses, it won't be from violent revolution, it'll be from innovations which prevent them from continuing to interfere in our ability to freely exchange. With the creation of things like Crypto Currency and 3D printers, their ability to interfere is already disappearing. If they attempt to initiate force against the new free society, they'd just be encouraging the 327-million people living here to defend themselves. No army in the world outnumbers the general populace, the only thing which allows them to maintain control is the illusion of authority.

I find it hard to believe that citizens armed with shotguns, rifles, and pistols would be any match for a professional army with tanks, backed up with air power and artillery. China would be in this country in a blink of an eye just to get our petroleum.

This country like a number of other nations were formed for mutual defense. We've added a lot of stuff besides defense but defense is the basic reason for the nation and the government. Without the government to focus all divergent interest into defending the nation, the country would fall to a foreign power in no time at all.

The basic problem with anarchy is that the whole is stronger than all the parts because the parts will not act in unison to meet a global problem. The only way you can get all parts working together to accomplish a goal is with a centralize power which can make it happen. Thus we are back to some kind of goverment.

How many American solders have we lost in the middle-east over religious anarchists? You don't give people credit for being able to defend themselves. If you were in charge of a country that wanted to invade another, would you have more concerns of an armed citizenry or a disarmed citizenry? We can't stop our own people from killing multitudes of other people, but a foreign invasion can?

If you're asking would an armed citizenry in the US be a problem for an invading army, the answer is of course, Yes. If you're asking would an armed citizenry dissuade a military power such as Russia or China from invading a nation of strategic importance such as the US with no goverment or centralized military, the answer is obviously No.

There is a huge difference between citizens owning guns and a organized military force with centralized control and planning. If America experienced an invasion today with no armed forces for defense, it would bear little resemblance to Lexington and Concord in 1775, with well-disciplined minutemen assembling on the town square to defend liberty against the redcoats. It would more likely be a larger scale reenactment of the of the revolt in Kansas between 1854 to 1861, when small bands of armed patriots unleashed an orgy of violence, unbounded by any laws of war or human decency in which the citizenry suffered as much as enemy.

No, I am not supporting that. I'm all behind our military, and we can't make them strong enough in my opinion. However, having an armed citizenry is a great backup just in case. It would be something that any foreign invaders would have to seriously consider in the event they could invade our country and get past our military to our shores.

Remember too that many of our citizens were in the military and do have the training.

 

[Flopper]

People could form their own militia, Private Security could be hired to patrol neighborhoods(Like they do now), and without the Government infringing on our right to defend ourselves,

Outside of gated communities, what neighborhood has hired private security to patrol their area?

Just as one example, there are neighborhoods in Seattle with Private Security. There's an entire industry for this. Amazingly, with Government infringing on people's right to defend themselves, and Road Pirates taking an average of 15 minutes to arrive, there's even more incentive for this sort of thing. Of course, regulations and an unsustainable fiat currency make it more expensive than it would be, but they're still half the price and twice as effective as Road Pirates.
Texas Town Gets Rid of Police Dept., Hires 'SEAL Security' — Guess What Reportedly Happened to Crime
A town that hired Seal Security had a drop of 61% in their crime rate.
This, of course, makes sense. They're not working for an organization which claims legitimate use of the initiation of force, they have to worry about losing their jobs, because as anyone who isn't an economic illiterate would know, having a monopoly on anything is bad. This means, naturally, replacing Police with Private Security would result in a more effective and less costly product.

EDIT:

Police are accountable to the people. A security company is accountable to it's shareholders. We want the police to pursue criminals regardless of whether it's cost effective or not. Pursuing serial killers, cold cases, and organized crime are costly and more often than not fail to reach their goal. It makes no financial sense at all to spend years and millions of dollars perusing a child killer but that is exactly what police do. Security firms make a lot more money, protecting the wealthy, guarding warehouses and patrolling gated communities, a lot more than they could make pursuing criminals.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

People could form their own militia, Private Security could be hired to patrol neighborhoods(Like they do now), and without the Government infringing on our right to defend ourselves,

Outside of gated communities, what neighborhood has hired private security to patrol their area?

Just as one example, there are neighborhoods in Seattle with Private Security. There's an entire industry for this. Amazingly, with Government infringing on people's right to defend themselves, and Road Pirates taking an average of 15 minutes to arrive, there's even more incentive for this sort of thing. Of course, regulations and an unsustainable fiat currency make it more expensive than it would be, but they're still half the price and twice as effective as Road Pirates.
Texas Town Gets Rid of Police Dept., Hires 'SEAL Security' — Guess What Reportedly Happened to Crime
A town that hired Seal Security had a drop of 61% in their crime rate.
This, of course, makes sense. They're not working for an organization which claims legitimate use of the initiation of force, they have to worry about losing their jobs, because as anyone who isn't an economic illiterate would know, having a monopoly on anything is bad. This means, naturally, replacing Police with Private Security would result in a more effective and less costly product.

EDIT:

Police are accountable to the people. A security company is accountable to it's shareholders. We want the police to pursue criminals regardless of whether it's cost effective or not. Pursuing serial killers, cold cases, and organized crime are costly and more often than not fail to reach their goal. It makes no financial sense at all to spend years and millions of dollars perusing a child killer but that is exactly what police do. Security firms make a lot more money, protecting the wealthy, guarding warehouses and patrolling gated communities, a lot more than they could make pursuing criminals.

Hiring a security company to do the work of police is like hiring the boy scouts to guard a bank. Police make the money they do because of levies that the citizens pass and agree to pay for. In fact we had one here about three years ago. We passed it with flying colors. My neighborhood may be bad, but we have great police if you really have an emergency, although I would rank them pretty low with traffic stops and things like that. However the Ferguson Effect is more responsible for that.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

As the old saying goes, you get what you pay for.

They are not better because they have minimal training and no authority. If you were in a hostage situation with a guy holding a gun against your head, would you want a rent-a-cop to be the person in charge or a highly trained police officer?

Minimal Training is an assumption, there is absolutely no training that other people cannot go through. You're literally assuming that they have no training on the sole basis that they're not employed by the Government, which is blatantly retarded. If anything, they'd be trained better, because you can just get the same service elsewhere.

They ARE also better because they have no authority, it means they can only kill or hurt people in self defense or the defense of others, rather than kidnapping and imprisoning them for carrying a plant they don't like AND other people can defend themselves against them if they attempt to hurt them wrongly.

Authority is not an illusion. We the people give the authority to our police to enforce laws and protect us. You can't possibly do that without authority. Otherwise the criminals would just laugh at you. Police are not allowed to kidnap, murder or rob people. WTF did you get that from?

Nobody gives them authority to do those things, we have literally no say in what laws are passed, and Government officials do not work for us. They've even admitted this in court cases.

I also want to further point out that you don't freaking speak for me, and neither does anyone else. A majority of people saying something, ASSUMING it's a majority, doesn't change that. None of the people in any public office represents my interests, either, they don't freaking know me. They're literally just normal people claiming to have authority over us, despite having no expressed consent in any way.

They factually are. What do you call it when someone takes property from you against your will? Gosh, that sounds exactly like robbery. Oh wait, that's because it is. They literally force you to pull over by the side of the road under threat of violence, then steal your money under threat of violence. This is how taxes work, too. They also gun people down for defending themselves when they break into their homes or assault them for doing something they don't like which doesn't hurt anyone. They also literally kidnap and imprison people, how many people are in jail for "crimes" that don't hurt anyone? 48%, if I recall correctly. They literally kidnap and imprison people for "crimes" that didn't hurt anyone. How is this not obvious to do? Oh gosh, probably because you attribute rights to them which nobody else has, as if they're above us.

Police have the authority to arrest people when needed. They have the authority to use their firearm for protection and nothing more.

I guess that's why, in all the instances I mentioned, they straight-up murdered people and got away with it, under no threat of violence from the victims. It's like Road Pirates have no competition, and get funding regardless of performance. Their "authority" is an illusion, it's just the threat of violence against people who try to defend themselves.

They aren't robbing anybody. I have no idea where you dream this stuff up at. Most police have recordings of their entire day, and many people today have pocket video cameras and hidden cameras on businesses and homes.

It's called "applying the same standards to everyone", and it's hard to do when you've been brainwashed into worshiping an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers. Do you know what they do with those video cameras when they don't want people to see? They either don't get released, or they "mysteriously" fall off while they're attacking an innocent person.
Woman shot herself in the head while cuffed with hands behind her back during traffic stop in suicide, police say
Nothing strange about this at all.

If a police officer is found to use aggressive force or illegal force, they are held accountable. They face grand juries, judges, and some have been convicted and sent to prison like any other criminal. But again, very rare.

Government officials are not considered people by law, they are only found guilty in the cases in which they are found to be a liability to the Government. You seem to forget that the Government owns the courts, and therefor can just arbitrarily decide that the Road Pirates are innocent, even when the evidence proves it. You can't even bring them to court for failing to protect you, because the Government ruled that they have no obligation to serve you.
Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia
You're living in a dream world where complete strangers claim to represent your interests despite having never met you, and where they become paragons of goodness for calling themselves Government. Maybe you should stop trusting the Government-run media so that you can get out of their echo chamber.

 

[Flopper]

People could form their own militia, Private Security could be hired to patrol neighborhoods(Like they do now), and without the Government infringing on our right to defend ourselves,

Outside of gated communities, what neighborhood has hired private security to patrol their area?

Just as one example, there are neighborhoods in Seattle with Private Security. There's an entire industry for this. Amazingly, with Government infringing on people's right to defend themselves, and Road Pirates taking an average of 15 minutes to arrive, there's even more incentive for this sort of thing. Of course, regulations and an unsustainable fiat currency make it more expensive than it would be, but they're still half the price and twice as effective as Road Pirates.
Texas Town Gets Rid of Police Dept., Hires 'SEAL Security' — Guess What Reportedly Happened to Crime
A town that hired Seal Security had a drop of 61% in their crime rate.
This, of course, makes sense. They're not working for an organization which claims legitimate use of the initiation of force, they have to worry about losing their jobs, because as anyone who isn't an economic illiterate would know, having a monopoly on anything is bad. This means, naturally, replacing Police with Private Security would result in a more effective and less costly product.

EDIT:

Police are accountable to the people. A security company is accountable to it's shareholders. We want the police to pursue criminals regardless of whether it's cost effective or not. Pursuing serial killers, cold cases, and organized crime are costly and more often than not fail to reach their goal. It makes no financial sense at all to spend years and millions of dollars perusing a child killer but that is exactly what police do. Security firms make a lot more money, protecting the wealthy, guarding warehouses and patrolling gated communities, a lot more than they could make pursuing criminals.

Hiring a security company to do the work of police is like hiring the boy scouts to guard a bank. Police make the money they do because of levies that the citizens pass and agree to pay for. In fact we had one here about three years ago. We passed it with flying colors. My neighborhood may be bad, but we have great police if you really have an emergency, although I would rank them pretty low with traffic stops and things like that. However the Ferguson Effect is more responsible for that.

I've never in my life had any problem with the police. They have always been helpful and courteous. I think they key on the person they are dealing with. If you're courteous and respectful, they will follow suit. If you're antagonistic with a chip on your shoulder, then their response is likely to be less than friendly. I think you have to really like people a lot to be an effective cop because you have to put up with a lot of awful shit.

 

[Marion Morrison]

People could form their own militia, Private Security could be hired to patrol neighborhoods(Like they do now), and without the Government infringing on our right to defend ourselves,

Outside of gated communities, what neighborhood has hired private security to patrol their area?

Just as one example, there are neighborhoods in Seattle with Private Security. There's an entire industry for this. Amazingly, with Government infringing on people's right to defend themselves, and Road Pirates taking an average of 15 minutes to arrive, there's even more incentive for this sort of thing. Of course, regulations and an unsustainable fiat currency make it more expensive than it would be, but they're still half the price and twice as effective as Road Pirates.
Texas Town Gets Rid of Police Dept., Hires 'SEAL Security' — Guess What Reportedly Happened to Crime
A town that hired Seal Security had a drop of 61% in their crime rate.
This, of course, makes sense. They're not working for an organization which claims legitimate use of the initiation of force, they have to worry about losing their jobs, because as anyone who isn't an economic illiterate would know, having a monopoly on anything is bad. This means, naturally, replacing Police with Private Security would result in a more effective and less costly product.

EDIT:

Because the "road pirates" take so long to arrive, is why every citizen capable should take measures to ensure their own personal safety. AKA People should be armed.

 

[Marion Morrison]

People could form their own militia, Private Security could be hired to patrol neighborhoods(Like they do now), and without the Government infringing on our right to defend ourselves,

Outside of gated communities, what neighborhood has hired private security to patrol their area?

Just as one example, there are neighborhoods in Seattle with Private Security. There's an entire industry for this. Amazingly, with Government infringing on people's right to defend themselves, and Road Pirates taking an average of 15 minutes to arrive, there's even more incentive for this sort of thing. Of course, regulations and an unsustainable fiat currency make it more expensive than it would be, but they're still half the price and twice as effective as Road Pirates.
Texas Town Gets Rid of Police Dept., Hires 'SEAL Security' — Guess What Reportedly Happened to Crime
A town that hired Seal Security had a drop of 61% in their crime rate.
This, of course, makes sense. They're not working for an organization which claims legitimate use of the initiation of force, they have to worry about losing their jobs, because as anyone who isn't an economic illiterate would know, having a monopoly on anything is bad. This means, naturally, replacing Police with Private Security would result in a more effective and less costly product.

EDIT:

Police are accountable to the people. A security company is accountable to it's shareholders. We want the police to pursue criminals regardless of whether it's cost effective or not. Pursuing serial killers, cold cases, and organized crime are costly and more often than not fail to reach their goal. It makes no financial sense at all to spend years and millions of dollars perusing a child killer but that is exactly what police do. Security firms make a lot more money, protecting the wealthy, guarding warehouses and patrolling gated communities, a lot more than they could make pursuing criminals.

Hiring a security company to do the work of police is like hiring the boy scouts to guard a bank. Police make the money they do because of levies that the citizens pass and agree to pay for. In fact we had one here about three years ago. We passed it with flying colors. My neighborhood may be bad, but we have great police if you really have an emergency, although I would rank them pretty low with traffic stops and things like that. However the Ferguson Effect is more responsible for that.

I've never in my life had any problem with the police. They have always been helpful and courteous. I think they key on the person they are dealing with. If you're courteous and respectful, they will follow suit. If you're antagonistic with a chip on your shoulder, then their response is likely to be less than friendly. I think you have to really like people a lot to be an effective cop because you have to put up with a lot of awful shit.

Not necessarily.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Police are accountable to the people. A security company is accountable to it's shareholders. We want the police to pursue criminals regardless of whether it's cost effective or not. Pursuing serial killers, cold cases, and organized crime are costly and more often than not fail to reach their goal. It makes no financial sense at all to spend years and millions of dollars perusing a child killer but that is exactly what police do. Security firms make a lot more money, protecting the wealthy, guarding warehouses and patrolling gated communities, a lot more than they could make pursuing criminals.

Road Pirates are not accountable to the people, they're no more accountable than the rest of the Government, which ignores absolutely everything "we" want.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
They also don't serve us:
Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia
The Government literally admitted this. All you're doing is repeating what you've been told by your masters in Government.

A security company is accountable to it's shareholders.

Oh, so you legitimately DON'T know how the market works. You see, there are these people, they're called consumers, they buy stuff from the business. If those consumers don't buy from that business, they run out of money. Even assuming the Shareholders want to throw their money into a black hole, like economic illiterates such as yourself like to claim, nobody is obligated to buy their services.

We want the police to pursue criminals regardless of whether it's cost effective or not.

You're completely missing the point here, as you consistently have so far. You see, you either move into a neighborhood where they have hired Private Security, or you buy your own. In either case, they are there to prevent people from hurting you or depriving you of your property. Beyond that, there's nothing to use force against them for. This is cost effective, because in most cases, people aren't going to want to be shot in the face, and they can raise or lower prices according to demand. You have already said you'd like to not be hurt(Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong), which means there is demand. Now, this idea that "crime" means something bad is just silly. How does downloading music or smoking pot hurt you? It doesn't, the Government just doesn't like when people do them. There's no reason to use force against people for doing those things.

Pursuing serial killers, cold cases, and organized crime are costly and more often than not fail to reach their goal. It makes no financial sense at all to spend years and millions of dollars perusing a child killer but that is exactly what police do. Security firms make a lot more money, protecting the wealthy, guarding warehouses and patrolling gated communities, a lot more than they could make pursuing criminals.

False, if there's a demand for something, people will pay them to do it. The fact that you expressed a desire to deal with those things you mentioned is inherently proof that there would be profit incentive, and thus an industry dealing with each of those. In fact, Private Investigators already exist.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

People could form their own militia, Private Security could be hired to patrol neighborhoods(Like they do now), and without the Government infringing on our right to defend ourselves,

Outside of gated communities, what neighborhood has hired private security to patrol their area?

Just as one example, there are neighborhoods in Seattle with Private Security. There's an entire industry for this. Amazingly, with Government infringing on people's right to defend themselves, and Road Pirates taking an average of 15 minutes to arrive, there's even more incentive for this sort of thing. Of course, regulations and an unsustainable fiat currency make it more expensive than it would be, but they're still half the price and twice as effective as Road Pirates.
Texas Town Gets Rid of Police Dept., Hires 'SEAL Security' — Guess What Reportedly Happened to Crime
A town that hired Seal Security had a drop of 61% in their crime rate.
This, of course, makes sense. They're not working for an organization which claims legitimate use of the initiation of force, they have to worry about losing their jobs, because as anyone who isn't an economic illiterate would know, having a monopoly on anything is bad. This means, naturally, replacing Police with Private Security would result in a more effective and less costly product.

EDIT:

Because the "road pirates" take so long to arrive, is why every citizen capable should take measures to ensure their own personal safety. AKA People should be armed.

Exactly, everyone should protect themselves, and hiring private security would be a preventative measure, while Road Pirates are purely reactionary. They're basically just for paper work.

 

[Marion Morrison]

People could form their own militia, Private Security could be hired to patrol neighborhoods(Like they do now), and without the Government infringing on our right to defend ourselves,

Outside of gated communities, what neighborhood has hired private security to patrol their area?

Just as one example, there are neighborhoods in Seattle with Private Security. There's an entire industry for this. Amazingly, with Government infringing on people's right to defend themselves, and Road Pirates taking an average of 15 minutes to arrive, there's even more incentive for this sort of thing. Of course, regulations and an unsustainable fiat currency make it more expensive than it would be, but they're still half the price and twice as effective as Road Pirates.
Texas Town Gets Rid of Police Dept., Hires 'SEAL Security' — Guess What Reportedly Happened to Crime
A town that hired Seal Security had a drop of 61% in their crime rate.
This, of course, makes sense. They're not working for an organization which claims legitimate use of the initiation of force, they have to worry about losing their jobs, because as anyone who isn't an economic illiterate would know, having a monopoly on anything is bad. This means, naturally, replacing Police with Private Security would result in a more effective and less costly product.

EDIT:

Because the "road pirates" take so long to arrive, is why every citizen capable should take measures to ensure their own personal safety. AKA People should be armed.

Exactly, everyone should protect themselves, and hiring private security would be a preventative measure, while Road Pirates are purely reactionary. They're basically just for paper work.

There still needs to be law enforcement and an army, because bad people can gang up.

 

[Votto]

I'm willing to learn about politics basic theory. I'm going to study it. Can you explain what is the politics...

Here is the ivory tower definition from wiki:


Politics refers to a set of activities associated with the governance of a country, or an area. It involves making decisions that apply to members of a group.[1]

It refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance—organized control over a human community, particularly a state.[2] The academic study focusing on just politics, which is therefore more targeted than general political science, is sometimes referred to as politology.

In modern nation-states, people have formed political parties to represent their ideas. They agree to take the same position on many issues and agree to support the same changes to law and the same leaders.[3]

Here is the real world definition:

Essentially, politics is the art of forming groups to oppose other groups so that the people in your own group get special perks for their loyalty. If there are no such divisions then they must be manufactured based upon such things as race, religion, socioeconomic status, etc. so that you will gain support from people who want special perks from you.

The absolute worst thing you could do is treat everyone the same and be fair to everyone. Who would give you money and support just to be treated the same? Politics is all about the art of division and disunity.

 

[Votto]

As mark Twain once said, politicians and a babies diapers should be changed often, and for the same reason.

Unfortunately, that is rarely the case.