In this episode, myself and fellow Rant author 'John' (Craig) discuss wiretapping and liberties, conscription and the minimum wage.
Episode 2 coming soon.
Posts
Culturally Enriched Murder in Lappeenranta
36 minutes ago
The Police
I recently had an argument about role of the state police in modern society. My opponents seemed to favour a powerful state police force, I do not. However the subject quickly ran onto on-the-spot fines. Now, I feel summary justice is simply wrong. There is no way of knowing if the person in question was even guilty of anything, let alone if the sentence is proportionate (eg. someone fined £100 for throwing away a letter they took to read on the way to a bus stop in a public bin). What's more, since levying these fines is increasingly being farmed out to contractors who are paid on commission, they represent a corrosive effect on society: these 'police' are no longer "only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence," but state mercenaries given special privileges and set against the public for their own enrichment.
As to the police themselves: I do not see how being an employee of the state can justly entitle someone to greater powers over others. Either arresting people in particular circumstances (or whatever) is moral and just, in which case anyone ought to be able to do it, or it is not, in which case no one should. The growth in such powers has gone hand-in-hand with the summary punishments and 'victimless crimes' for the enforcement of which they are necessary. To return to that great Peel quote:
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
So it should be. So it was meant to be. But it isn't, at least, not any more.
Having conceded that, though, you could well ask what the purpose of a government police force is. People certainly did when the state police were first introduced in the mid 1800s. Since the government police have no special powers in my desired new libertarian world, it hardly seems fair to, eg. pay for the policing of property crimes against large businesses out of the public purse, since they can obviously afford it themselves. And similar logic can be applied to residential areas. Each person in the UK, for instance, pays about £200/year for policing. So my street (for instance) could, for the same money, afford to employ a constable on a full time basis just to guard our street. This may not even be the best use of the money, but it's hard to see how the present government solution would provide better protection. Decentralisation of police, and taking the powers out of the hands of the state, would be more beneficial to how crime is fought, I feel.
Anyone who feels that the streets would descend into anarchy with private police, I ask, can you apply your same logic to your own side, and ask yourself: "Why don't the police, as they hold a very privileged position legally, and are by far the largest and best armed enforcement agency in this country, take over the government, shoot suspected criminals without trial, and ignore the law wherever it pleases them?"
To an extent I would say that they have done the latter two things. But that they do not do these things to the extent that society descends into anarchy as you describe, it is in the final analysis only because they either do not believe this personally to be just, fear the adverse reaction of their colleagues, or fear, in the last resort, the army suppressing such a coup. In the first and final case, the same applies to private policemen. They would still have their own moral code, and fear of the ultimate measures that may be taken to restore order. In the second case, however, and I think the dominant one in actually preventing the majority of potential police criminality, the private system is far stronger, because it invests in no particular organisation the powers of policing. A corrupt policeman or a 'vigilante' would have to fear not just the response of his friends and colleagues, but the response of other, possibly competing, organisations, the aggrieved man and his own guards, and even the response of private citizens.
Sorry to quote this again, but Peel has very elegantly summed up almost all my views on this into a single sentence (shame he founded the Met):
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
In other words, under a private system there is no dichotomy of "the police", who are above and beyond the citizen, and thereby owe him some sort of partial duty to not abuse the powers that he has claimed. There are merely individuals, some of whom are paid full time to do what is the equal right and duty of all.
As to the police themselves: I do not see how being an employee of the state can justly entitle someone to greater powers over others. Either arresting people in particular circumstances (or whatever) is moral and just, in which case anyone ought to be able to do it, or it is not, in which case no one should. The growth in such powers has gone hand-in-hand with the summary punishments and 'victimless crimes' for the enforcement of which they are necessary. To return to that great Peel quote:
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
So it should be. So it was meant to be. But it isn't, at least, not any more.
Having conceded that, though, you could well ask what the purpose of a government police force is. People certainly did when the state police were first introduced in the mid 1800s. Since the government police have no special powers in my desired new libertarian world, it hardly seems fair to, eg. pay for the policing of property crimes against large businesses out of the public purse, since they can obviously afford it themselves. And similar logic can be applied to residential areas. Each person in the UK, for instance, pays about £200/year for policing. So my street (for instance) could, for the same money, afford to employ a constable on a full time basis just to guard our street. This may not even be the best use of the money, but it's hard to see how the present government solution would provide better protection. Decentralisation of police, and taking the powers out of the hands of the state, would be more beneficial to how crime is fought, I feel.
Anyone who feels that the streets would descend into anarchy with private police, I ask, can you apply your same logic to your own side, and ask yourself: "Why don't the police, as they hold a very privileged position legally, and are by far the largest and best armed enforcement agency in this country, take over the government, shoot suspected criminals without trial, and ignore the law wherever it pleases them?"
To an extent I would say that they have done the latter two things. But that they do not do these things to the extent that society descends into anarchy as you describe, it is in the final analysis only because they either do not believe this personally to be just, fear the adverse reaction of their colleagues, or fear, in the last resort, the army suppressing such a coup. In the first and final case, the same applies to private policemen. They would still have their own moral code, and fear of the ultimate measures that may be taken to restore order. In the second case, however, and I think the dominant one in actually preventing the majority of potential police criminality, the private system is far stronger, because it invests in no particular organisation the powers of policing. A corrupt policeman or a 'vigilante' would have to fear not just the response of his friends and colleagues, but the response of other, possibly competing, organisations, the aggrieved man and his own guards, and even the response of private citizens.
Sorry to quote this again, but Peel has very elegantly summed up almost all my views on this into a single sentence (shame he founded the Met):
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
In other words, under a private system there is no dichotomy of "the police", who are above and beyond the citizen, and thereby owe him some sort of partial duty to not abuse the powers that he has claimed. There are merely individuals, some of whom are paid full time to do what is the equal right and duty of all.
Global 'Morality' Index of 2009
An organisation has recently ranked countries based on their 'morality'. Apparently, "Over 70 sources were scoured for information on the attitudes of the public and legal standing against morally reprehensible actions viewed negatively by all civilized and honourable beings. Interviews were conducted through various media and adjustments made to reflect differing viewpoints on immorality in these regions." Want to see the list? The highest possible score is 10, the lowest is 1...
1. Saudi Arabia 9.03
2. Iran 9.01
3. Oman 8.99
4. Mauritania 8.98
5. Bahrain 8.81
6. Qatar 8.80
7. Brunei 8.75
8. Afghanistan 8. 75
9. Togo 8.70
10. Somalia 8.57
11. Guinea 8.43
12. Iraq 8.36
13. Sudan 8.23
14. Palestine 8.19
15. Bangladesh 8.15
16. United Arab Emirates 7.67
17. Kyrgyz Republic 7.43
18. Cameroon 7.25
19. Lebanon 7.11
20. Malaysia 7.03
Right. First of all, Palestine is not a country. Second of all, Saudia Arabia still mandate that women are not allowed to sit in the front seat of a car if a man is driving, amongst other things. But what is most interesting are the bottom 5... (Only 67 countries were in the survey)
63. United Kingdom 1.24
64. United States 1.06
65. Israel 0.32
66. Netherlands 0.15
67. Denmark 0.14
Notice anything? All of these countries have been attacked by Islamic extremists in the past decade! And the top 20 are all breeding grounds for terrorism! What a crock of shit, eh?
1. Saudi Arabia 9.03
2. Iran 9.01
3. Oman 8.99
4. Mauritania 8.98
5. Bahrain 8.81
6. Qatar 8.80
7. Brunei 8.75
8. Afghanistan 8. 75
9. Togo 8.70
10. Somalia 8.57
11. Guinea 8.43
12. Iraq 8.36
13. Sudan 8.23
14. Palestine 8.19
15. Bangladesh 8.15
16. United Arab Emirates 7.67
17. Kyrgyz Republic 7.43
18. Cameroon 7.25
19. Lebanon 7.11
20. Malaysia 7.03
Right. First of all, Palestine is not a country. Second of all, Saudia Arabia still mandate that women are not allowed to sit in the front seat of a car if a man is driving, amongst other things. But what is most interesting are the bottom 5... (Only 67 countries were in the survey)
63. United Kingdom 1.24
64. United States 1.06
65. Israel 0.32
66. Netherlands 0.15
67. Denmark 0.14
Notice anything? All of these countries have been attacked by Islamic extremists in the past decade! And the top 20 are all breeding grounds for terrorism! What a crock of shit, eh?
MPs Expenses Update...
Got this from the Devil's Kitchen...
Tough fucking shit: if you bastards didn't want to be punished, then you shouldn't have stolen as much as you possibly could, should you? But you did: so suck it up, you fucks.
Believe you me, you thieving sacks of shit, Sir Christopher Kelly's recommendations are far more lenient than those that I would have levied: mine would have made the Star Chamber look like fucking Alton Towers, and would probably have involved cutting your salaries by 75%, banning all expenses, shoving sharpened cockroaches up your pissholes, putting half of you in prison and hanging the other half from the nearest tree.
You dishonest bastards got off very, very lightly.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Ah Bollocks...
HAPPY BIRTHDAY BLOG!
Never mind that it was last week and I forgot... I'll give you a makeover soon...
I'm Sorry
I truly am sorry, but I kind of have to veer back to the politics for this one...
So the government has sacked the chief scientist employed to advise them on drug-related topics. Smooth. Because, of course, every twit in parliament is a chemist and obviously knows the consequences of drug use better than the top guy in the country. Now it seems to me that this chap was employed to advise them on drugs, and that is what he did. He told no lies - he just reported the facts. But he was sacked. Now if the government sacked a man for doing his job, what can we do to the government? Because as far as I can tell, those arses haven't done their jobs for a long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long time.
One Tory Twat said scientists 'know their place' in areas such as this. In my feeble opinion the scientists place is in fact to essentially make the damn policy, because you know nothing you fate, useless, deformed waster of air. You know your place pal, away from me, because if I got my hands on you now I'd see to it you'd be relying on drugs yourself for quite a while.
I hope they all resign in protest.
True. True.
An interesting trait that Alaska shares with Hawaii is its ability to move around geographically. Go ahead, try and find Alaska on a map of the United States. Got it? Now try again with a different map. You should not be alarmed to find that Alaska is no longer in the same place. Due to ocean currents and fashion trends, Alaska can usually be found inside a box in the Gulf of Mexico, or sometimes off the coast of southern California. The size of Alaska may fluctuate, but residents of Texas should be mollified to know that, were Alaska to be cut in half, Texas would become the third largest state.
What is Libertarianism?
Back to the political thing for some humourous stuff on libertarianism...
Libertarians oppose the Iraq War, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on War, and most other wars because wars are when poor people die for the benefit of rich people. They support, however, the War on the State - which, they assure us, will be launched "any day now". Libertarians also fornicate with anarchists.
Libertarians do, however, support the war on child pornography. Sociologists have long puzzled over this, arguing that either prohibitionism and criminalisation are evils or they are not, and that if the state has no right to intervene with people turning themselves into drooling thieving vegetables through chemical amusement aids, then it clearly should have no right to monitor and bug people's computers.
However the real reason for their objections appears to be that,at the moment, (unlike the drugs market) there is little hope of financial returns for investment in the Paedo pound. The other principle argument being that "unlimited consumer choice" should not be extended to (in scientific/rational terms) "filthy paedo scum who should be strung up with the commies." Of course the commie who wrote the previous statement is a dumb piece of shit because there would totally be a market for child porn if it was legal. Look how many people are on 4chan.
As the child porn market has extended however, there seems to be a rethink going on. (cf. Mary Ruwart: "Hey, kids have always screwed adults what's the big deal, they have a right to own their bodies and, hey, we all make mistakes." and Sean Gabb:" Hey, relax guys child porn is only child exploitation in the name of profit. Big deal, I've got a pair of shoes made by 5 year old Siberian orphans and I would think that being banged in a warm studio would be far preferable to them than being forced to operate that kind of machinery.") So, perhaps there is a chance that all those big fat corporate executives who currently blow Cocaine out of their backsides whilst banging their way through the infant population of Thailand and Sri Lanka will also soon feel the touch of Liberty's hand on their shoulders. Let's hope so, eh?
The typical "modern libertarian" is an anti-government, beer-drinking, crack-smoking, gun-toting, bomb-making, orgy-participating, porn-loving, South Park-watching, straight, male, American "don't fuck with me" motherfucker, who lives with his mom and hates the state. Cheap sex, deadly flavors of the evil weed known as pot, and the latest and greatest style of handguns being available in every convenience store wouldn't concern a libertarian in the least. Libertarians are also known for opposing those evil commies, prudish Christians, and Arab types who seek to tyrannize the world with economic and personal repression based on dumb religious values and compassion paid for with other people's money. This includes, in the US: the Democrats, Republicans and the Quakers, and in the UK: the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the French.
I hate to admit: that's me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
