constitution.org article: "Are cops constitutional?"

eye95 · Mar 16, 2013

Citizen said:
You make some good points, Eye.

Do keep in mind that the hammer-swingers are themselves responding to the anti-liberty actions of the community. The problem isn't that a community can or can't establish a police force. The problem is the community enforces its laws on everybody. A fella can't opt-out of the "protection". Even hard-core anarcho-libertarians recognize that any group of people are free to establish a security/police force. The divergance is whether the group that establishes police can foist those police on others who do not want their protection, or do not want to be a part of the association/group that establishes the police force.

Of course they can establish a police force and "foist" it on everyone in the jurisdiction. That is why societies and governments exist: to protect the rights of everyone within its limits. That protection necessitates an enforcement mechanism and members charged with that task, whether you call them sheriffs, constables, bailiffs, or police. The question is one for the People: What can those police lawfully do in the discharge of their duties? It is not a question of whether they or another entity with another name performs that function.

If the People of a State vest too much power in a police force, your option (at least as was designed by the Framers) is to vote with your feet. With a monolithic state (which we have been moving toward, and some folks in this thread are ironically advocating), you lose the option of voting with your feet. Those who truly love Liberty should be advocating for bottom-up, not top-down.

Some States will bottom-up despotism. That's OK, others will bottom-up incredible amounts of Liberty. Just move there. When you try to top-down liberty, you WILL eventually get despotism from that top.

Freedom1Man · Mar 16, 2013

palerider116 said:
Each state is a republic to itself. The Constitution (I refer to the writings of St. George Tucker) is the limitations placed on the federal government (federal republic).

Which is why I made the distinction between federal and state constitutions and even the local county 'constitution.'

Why?

You can effect change better the closer you are to the government. Federal government needs more restrictions because it immensely removed from the people. The Bill of Rights is not aimed at state or local government. As the preamble states:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

The declaratory and restrictive clauses are only for the federal government. To use the Bill of Rights to address state or local issues was never the intention.

After with speaking with Constitutional scholar David Bozarth, I've been the writings of St. George Tucker, who was the leading jurist for constitutional studies until 1875. Then we got detailed and went on this living document tangent.

The Bill Of Rights limited the States also. Otherwise the 10th amendment would be be there and the 1st would not specify the limit as being on Congress.

Citizen · Mar 17, 2013

eye95 said:
Of course they can establish a police force and "foist" it on everyone in the jurisdiction. That is why societies and governments exist: to protect the rights of everyone within its limits. That protection necessitates an enforcement mechanism and members charged with that task, whether you call them sheriffs, constables, bailiffs, or police. The question is one for the People: What can those police lawfully do in the discharge of their duties? It is not a question of whether they or another entity with another name performs that function.

If the People of a State vest too much power in a police force, your option (at least as was designed by the Framers) is to vote with your feet. With a monolithic state (which we have been moving toward, and some folks in this thread are ironically advocating), you lose the option of voting with your feet. Those who truly love Liberty should be advocating for bottom-up, not top-down.

Some States will bottom-up despotism. That's OK, others will bottom-up incredible amounts of Liberty. Just move there. When you try to top-down liberty, you WILL eventually get despotism from that top.

Careful. You're treading into collectivism. A society is composed of individuals. Individuals have a right to form societies and governments for mutual protection; but its still individuals voluntarily exercising their own rights to do so. As soon as that voluntarily-formed society demands others involuntarily join them or receive their "protection", the legitimacy provided by the right-to-form-up goes out the window. It can only be legitimate if individuals have the right to opt-out or not opt-in. That is to say, as soon as a society compels others to join, receive, or obey, the individuals in that society destroy the legitimacy of their own claim of a right to form that society or government. They can't have it both ways--they cannot claim a right to voluntarily form up, and then claim a right to initiate force against those who would not voluntarily form up.

Even the constitution contains a piece of the involuntary-society lie. The 1A guarantees freedom to peaceably assemble (the right of association--the core principle underlying Locke's right to form societies.) Our courts have already recognized the corollary freedom not to associate. Yet, the federal government established by that constitution forces itself on millions.

Of course, it has always been that way. The camoflage on the argument for jurisdiction-over-everybody is the misstatement that society has a right to form government. Society has no rights--only individuals have rights. What is really going on is just those seeking control misleading everybody else. The argument that society has a right to form government is really handy for anybody who wants jurisdiction over everybody; and it is used that way. While carefully avoiding the key point that individuals have rights and powers, not society.

eye95 · Mar 17, 2013

Only if you think that the ideas of most of the Founders and Framers is "collectivist." They recognized that some authority had to be ceded to the government in order for it to perform its main function of protecting our Rights. The battles were over exactly with authorities to vest in the government and whether to vest them at the federal, State, or local level.

Personally, like most of the Founders and Framers, I want to cede minimal authority to the federal government, would cede a little more to the States, and would have zero problem with democracy at the local level exercising whatever level of control the People want or will allow, with a very few restrictions imposed by the State government. To me, Liberty includes folks having the right to live in despotic, but safe communities.

I think that there is a point of diminishing return when communities go too far in trying to control the People, but that having States and communities with varying levels of Liberty will eventually identify a "sweet spot" of Liberty that people will flock to, abandoning despotic or anarchistic communities. We actually see this as folks flee places like Detroit and Chicago, leaving behind takers and thugs.

There will naturally be varying "sweet spot" communities, as people are not homogeneous and will seek communities with a little more freedom or a little more of a controlled environment depending on the uniquenesses of each person.

This all only works if the federal government is not enforcing a one-size-fits-all system on all other levels of government in a top-down fashion. I am not a collectivist. I am a bottom-upist, a kind of federalist, who recognizes that such a system (the one the Framers truly intended, IMO, and the one that will ironically produce the most Liberty) will result in pockets of gross collectivism. I just won't live in one of those pockets.

Citizen · Mar 17, 2013

eye95 said:
SNIP Only if you think that the ideas of most of the Founders and Framers is "collectivist."

Um, yeah. That's exactly what I meant. As long as we understand that by "ideas" we're talking about the single idea that government can be forced involuntarily on everybody.

Citizen · Mar 17, 2013

eye95 said:
SNIP To me, Liberty includes folks having the right to live in despotic, but safe communities.

Huh!?!?!

We're talking about the absurdity of a group of individuals claiming the right to voluntarily form a government for mutual protection, and then claim they also have the right to enforce its jurisdiction on everybody involuntarily. We're talking about a refusal to recognize the rights of those who would opt-out or don't want to opt-in. What on earth do you mean by a right to live in despotic but safe community?

eye95 · Mar 17, 2013

That there will be a government is a given. To think otherwise is fantasy. In the absence of government, someone(s) will take charge. As a matter of fact a vacuum of government is an invitation to despotism.

Once we accept the reality that there will be government, the question becomes, how can you minimize it and how do you ensure that the People (of course, not 100% of them; that is impossible) see it as legitimate and that they are in control?

I think the Framers nailed it better than anyone else in history for structural reasons I have already outlined and won't take the time to repeat.

If you do not accept the premise that government is going to happen whether you want it or not and that the government created by the Framers is the best one possible, then we have nothing about government to discuss as we have polar opposite foundational ideas.

So, I will just move on. I'll be happy to discuss other things. But, as disappointing as it is, I will just stop talking about government with you.

Citizen · Mar 17, 2013

eye95 said:
That there will be a government is a given. To think otherwise is fantasy. In the absence of government, someone(s) will take charge. As a matter of fact a vacuum of government is an invitation to despotism.

Once we accept the reality that there will be government, the question becomes, how can you minimize it and how do you ensure that the People (of course, not 100% of them; that is impossible) see it as legitimate and that they are in control?

I think the Framers nailed it better than anyone else in history for structural reasons I have already outlined and won't take the time to repeat.

If you do not accept the premise that government is going to happen whether you want it or not and that the government created by the Framers is the best one possible, then we have nothing about government to discuss as we have polar opposite foundational ideas.

So, I will just move on. I'll be happy to discuss other things. But, as disappointing as it is, I will just stop talking about government with you.

Why? I don't understand why you would abandon the discussion at this point.

You haven't directly addressed my central premise about voluntariness. I knocked holes in the collectivist argument someone in the past tricked you into adopting that you were unable to repair, shifting instead to a non-sequitur reliance on the Founders and Framers.

Then in the quote just above, you go off on another tangent about the necessity of government, which has nothing to do with the absurdity of the initial discussion about a right to form a government or voluntariness.

Your exit has the hallmarks of running away. And, frankly I think we would both benefit from continuing the discussion. Now is definitely not the time to leave.

I would like to examine and discuss further the right of individuals to form societies and governments in light of your hypothesis that a government will coalesce anyway with an invitation to despotism. You have to understand, just because someone writes something today, does not mean it was a pre-existing idea in his head. Numerous times I've come to realize something right in the middle of composing a post. Meaning, I'm not necessarily arguing with you for the purpose of convincing you to adopt an idea. The exchange of ideas helps me see more of the picture.

eye95 · Mar 17, 2013

I am leaving the discussion because you seem to be operating from an impossible premise and one that is diametrically opposed to that which I accept as axiomatic, therefore meaningful discussion is also not possible.

We will simply be talking in circles. So I will move on.

Citizen · Mar 17, 2013

eye95 said:
I am leaving the discussion because you seem to be operating from an impossible premise and one that is diametrically opposed to that which I accept as axiomatic, therefore meaningful discussion is also not possible.

We will simply be talking in circles. So I will move on.

I understand. As long as we both understand there was no discussion. You weren't discussing. You were introducing tangents without directly refuting my points.

However, I think I see a way to continue.

Let's stipulate your hypothesis for the sake of discussion. Stated succinctly and without intent to bind: If a state of anarchy exists, a government will always coalesce; and, when coalescing from anarchy, there is an invitation to despotism. Lets call it the Eye Axiom or EA so we don't have to write it all out every time we refer to it.

So, onto discussion.

Is it true that the EA must occur? Or, can a situation be achieved where enough people sincerely recognize rights and are willing to allow voluntariness?

The EA seems to offer only two options, both as absolutes. I distrust this. It is too easy to forget one's own inability to pose a solution. That is to say, just because we can't or don't think of a workable system does not mean one isn't possible. What sort of system could replace the existing one, while maintaining legitimacy through voluntariness? Just because it can't happen overnite does not make it impossible.

Should we as a people really stop working towards a better solution? One would think it would be easy to sell voluntariness and sell ditching government based on the tremendously disastrous results of government. Its not merely that government is a necessary evil. History shows that government always becomes destructive, too often horribly so. Governmentisbadlyevil. Any given set of govern-ers may not start out that way, but it always develops.

eye95 · Mar 17, 2013

Your post illustrates the impossibility of discussion when folks are operating from diametrically opposed axiomatic bases.

You say, let's assume you are axiomatically correct, and then you proceed to try to disprove my axioms. That is impossible. Axioms are fundamentally accepted truths upon which all other ideas hang. You can't change mine. I can't change yours, so I won't try.

This is axiomatic also. So I will not explain again why I must move on.

minarchist · Mar 17, 2013

eye95 said:
Some States will bottom-up despotism. That's OK, others will bottom-up incredible amounts of Liberty. Just move there. When you try to top-down liberty, you WILL eventually get despotism from that top.

Do you think that the incorporation of various parts of the Bill or Rights was good or bad?

eye95 · Mar 17, 2013

minarchist said:
...

As you have demonstrated that you do not wish to conduct discussions with me on the up-and-up, I will (as I have communicated to you otherwise) no longer be conversing with you online. It's a pity, but that is the way it is. Moving on.

Citizen · Mar 17, 2013

eye95 said:
Your post illustrates the impossibility of discussion when folks are operating from diametrically opposed axiomatic bases.

You say, let's assume you are axiomatically correct, and then you proceed to try to disprove my axioms. That is impossible. Axioms are fundamentally accepted truths upon which all other ideas hang. You can't change mine. I can't change yours, so I won't try.

This is axiomatic also. So I will not explain again why I must move on.

Oh, I see. Good point. I didn't even realize I was doing it.

Lets continue it from another angle.

I disagree that it must always be the way you postulate in the EA. Nobody would have ever dreamed people could legitimately coalesce into societies and form governments for mutual protection--until John Locke came along. Until him, it was kings ruling by divine right. Well, until Charles I lost his head forty years earlier, anyway. My point is that John Locke created a huge change in political science. Our Declaration of Independence is a direct result--the language in the second paragraph is in some places almost verbatim Locke.

So, its possible. Who's to say that because the American Revolution and Declaration of Independence were the high point, that nothing higher can be achieved? Its kinda like arguing the earth was flat in 1320 AD. Until (Copernicus?) came along with a better idea.

So, is there really any point in not discussing it? Other than guaranteeing that it will never change?

I see no reason why localities cannot allow people to opt-out. I see no reason why there cannot be mutiple security forces for each corporation/mutual protection society. I see no reason why those groups could not arrest an opt-out who violates natural law on a protected member as a function of self-defense/security. I see no reason why numerous mutual protection corporations in a geographic region could not ally or form a board for a "state" entity like a state government.

You see, I think part of the problem is that we've been ruled by thugs for so long, that we've bought into some of the thug arguments. "Government is a necessary evil?" Oh, really? Why? Says who? Some of the very people who ended up in government themselves? Oh, that's a bit suspicious.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I don't accept it as true anymore. I don't know whether it is or isn't true. But, I know nothing will change as long as we accept it as true.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 18, 2013

Citizen said:
Oh, I see. Good point. I didn't even realize I was doing it.

Lets continue it from another angle.

I disagree that it must always be the way you postulate in the EA. Nobody would have ever dreamed people could legitimately coalesce into societies and form governments for mutual protection--until John Locke came along. Until him, it was kings ruling by divine right. Well, until Charles I lost his head forty years earlier, anyway. My point is that John Locke created a huge change in political science. Our Declaration of Independence is a direct result--the language in the second paragraph is in some places almost verbatim Locke.

So, its possible. Who's to say that because the American Revolution and Declaration of Independence were the high point, that nothing higher can be achieved? Its kinda like arguing the earth was flat in 1320 AD. Until (Copernicus?) came along with a better idea.

So, is there really any point in not discussing it? Other than guaranteeing that it will never change?

I see no reason why localities cannot allow people to opt-out. I see no reason why there cannot be mutiple security forces for each corporation/mutual protection society. I see no reason why those groups could not arrest an opt-out who violates natural law on a protected member as a function of self-defense/security. I see no reason why numerous mutual protection corporations in a geographic region could not ally or form a board for a "state" entity like a state government.

You see, I think part of the problem is that we've been ruled by thugs for so long, that we've bought into some of the thug arguments. "Government is a necessary evil?" Oh, really? Why? Says who? Some of the very people who ended up in government themselves? Oh, that's a bit suspicious.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I don't accept it as true anymore. I don't know whether it is or isn't true. But, I know nothing will change as long as we accept it as true.

The Book "The not so Wild West" supports much of what you are saying here.
Even when SanFrancisco became a large metropolis without much of a government, and crime rose, the people formed vigilante groups that reduced crime. After governments moved into the west with their monopolies of force, is when crime and homicide too a dramatic rise......they created a moral hazard, I believe in that now instead of just dealing with your neighbors, if you did something wrong you were dealing with a more corruptible and severe government.

OC for ME · Mar 18, 2013

Couple of points. The OP revolves around cop shops. In Missouri there has been the dissolution of cop shops because the town could not afford their own. So, they contracted out to a different cop shop. Then the town dissolved because the citizenry voted with their feet (with a little help from the crappy economy) and moved to "friendlier" locales.

The citizenry has the final say in what they will permit government to do. The closer the government is to the citizen the faster the affect on government when the citizen is no longer "close" to the government. County, then state.....well, you get the idea.

The government is a function of citizens wanting one around to take care of a few things. Some citizens want government to take care of more things, and thus some citizens want a government around to take care of most things. Pick your example that applies to the three condition (types) of government.

Who takes care of your next door neighbors 2 foot tall weeds when you are trying to sell your house? You or the government? If you choose yourself, what options do you have if your neighbor likes 2 foot tall weeds in his front yard? Who do you turn to to seek a remedy?

The premise is not cop shops or no cop shops, it is what are the cop shops doing and are they doing it the WAY I WANT THEM TO.

OC for ME · Mar 18, 2013

Citizen said:
<snip> I see no reason why localities cannot allow people to opt-out. I see no reason why there cannot be mutiple security forces for each corporation/mutual protection society. I see no reason why those groups could not arrest an opt-out who violates natural law on a protected member as a function of self-defense/security. I see no reason why numerous mutual protection corporations in a geographic region could not ally or form a board for a "state" entity like a state government. <snip>

I will not pay your private cop company. I did not choose them and I don't need them. If they, come onto my land they will be shot on sight as armed and dangerous trespassers. But, if you hire this other company then I would be willing to pay for their services.

By the way, if my recommended private cop company gets hired by me and my friends I will have to have them arrest your private cop company dudes for being where they have no authority to be. I don't like you or your "mutual protection corporation" and your thug private army can stay right where they are.

Private cop companies.....hmm, more like OCP. When does the castle build start.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 19, 2013

OC for ME said:
I will not pay your private cop company. I did not choose them and I don't need them. If they, come onto my land they will be shot on sight as armed and dangerous trespassers. But, if you hire this other company then I would be willing to pay for their services.

By the way, if my recommended private cop company gets hired by me and my friends I will have to have them arrest your private cop company dudes for being where they have no authority to be. I don't like you or your "mutual protection corporation" and your thug private army can stay right where they are.

Private cop companies.....hmm, more like OCP. When does the castle build start.

Like all the millions of private security guards?

Private cops don't have authority on your property you'd be right at shooting at them.

Giving government the monopoly of force and then stealing our money to pay for it is much the same premise as you stated here.

constitution.org article: "Are cops constitutional?"

eye95

Well-known member

Freedom1Man

Regular Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

eye95

Well-known member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

eye95

Well-known member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

eye95

Well-known member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

eye95

Well-known member

minarchist

Regular Member

eye95

Well-known member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member