Dealing with cops, understanding your rights,.... by a cop.

reply to post by Azp420


Or unless the competing company realizes it is more cost effective just to stay away, since a gunfight with a rival corporation is bad for quarterly profits.

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by Demoncreeper

 

Any cases of brutality by employees of a particular firm will result in public outcry and people switching to more honorable competing firms. The people are voting with their wallets. This is a huge advantage over the current system where public outcry falls on the deaf ears of corporate-loving politicians.

I'm now in the private security sector. It's not about honor when competing with other firms. Believe you me. Cheapest firm wins. If something goes wrong, security guards are disposable insurance policies.

reply to post by commdogg

The "most liberal nation"? Okay, who is? I'll bite.

Many Euro countries. The Netherlands, for instance.

Hmmmm yes. So this all hinges on "reputable" private security firms. What exactly, other than the fantasy free market, is keeping them reputable? Whats the incentive not to engage in predatory business practices if literally no one has the collective authority to shut them down?
Since the "free market" will now hinge on the integrity of private armies, what keeps the market free? Who tells them what their services are worth, or more likely, what happens when they tell YOU what their services are worth, or else. What happens when they realize that they really are in charge and no one is in a position to challenge them?

See my previous post (below your one).

To elaborate a little further, no one person has the authority to shut them down, it will be a natural result of their customers switching to more honorable competing firms. The free market tells them what their services are worth. Google supply and demand for the basics of how free markets work. Any one firm will only be in-charge as long as they are the firm which best provides what the most people want.

Oh and what prevents resource based conflict between "trading partners"? What happens when one community needs resources possessed by another and doesn't have the means to pay?

Oh, you mean like when one nation has lots of crude oil underground and a few other nations decide they want a piece of the pie? Kind of like that?

I'm all for free trade, yet regulation has its place doesn't it? What with child labor, workplace hazards and the like.

Don't buy from firms who employ children.

the thing i find most sad, is that all of whom who disagrees with the freemen, have said so themselves, the system is wrong in many ways. though they still defend that which they disagree with. does it not feel better to stand for what you truly believe in?? if you see ANY fault in a government, should it not be brought to attention and changed in a civil manner?? and again i ask for proof of your claims. PROVE US WRONG. stop beating around the bush and do it, with cold hard facts. i own every edition of the Black's Law Dictionary, 1-9..recently got the 9th. i will research any substantial facts which you place before me.

Galatians 5:13: For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by commdogg

 

The "most liberal nation"? Okay, who is? I'll bite.

Many Euro countries. The Netherlands, for instance.

Hmmmm yes. So this all hinges on "reputable" private security firms. What exactly, other than the fantasy free market, is keeping them reputable? Whats the incentive not to engage in predatory business practices if literally no one has the collective authority to shut them down?
Since the "free market" will now hinge on the integrity of private armies, what keeps the market free? Who tells them what their services are worth, or more likely, what happens when they tell YOU what their services are worth, or else. What happens when they realize that they really are in charge and no one is in a position to challenge them?

See my previous post (below your one).

To elaborate a little further, no one person has the authority to shut them down, it will be a natural result of their customers switching to more honorable competing firms. The free market tells them what their services are worth. Google supply and demand for the basics of how free markets work. Any one firm will only be in-charge as long as they are the firm which best provides what the most people want.

Oh and what prevents resource based conflict between "trading partners"? What happens when one community needs resources possessed by another and doesn't have the means to pay?

Oh, you mean like when one nation has lots of crude oil underground and a few other nations decide they want a piece of the pie? Kind of like that?

I'm all for free trade, yet regulation has its place doesn't it? What with child labor, workplace hazards and the like.

Don't buy from firms who employ children.

Oh ok, so by more liberal you mean more regulation? As all the things you probably are referring to, health care, prostitution, marijuana, are in fact HEAVILY regulated. Which is the only reason it exists there.

So how many lives, dollars, or town hall meetings would it take to "switch" a security firm? What if they object to removal with force? What do you do now? What if the next company finds it prudent just to hire the same guys the last company did, as that sounds like a very cost effective strategy. Your supply and demand free market argument is meaningless, when instability, natural or artificial may increase demand. Security can be abused and become self perpetuating. Worse, since there is no regulation in your mythical utopia, it can be collusive. What happens when all the security firms form price fixing partnerships or merge? Soon, there will be one company, and what is the answer then?
This model you defend isn't a society. It is a protection racket fitting of Sicilian gangsters.

Don't compare your points to current realities of warfare. Defend them. You're whole argument is that this will be better than it is now somehow. My challenge is that it will not, and likely be far worse. It will be exploitation under a corporate logo in lieu of a flag. Asserting that this will be better, and then acknowledging a serious flaw with it comparable to the current dirty business of what state on state warfare is like, doesn't cut it.

so whats the story commdogg, still refusing me your proof of claim?? can you not direct me to a location in law which would prove my understanding false?? yes or no?? if you claim yes, than PLEASE, i beg of you, present me with proof. if you can not, than i, (and i advise any whom read this to do the same) will deem your claims false, and made out of hearsay. so far, NO ONE, opposing my understandings has given any direction.

Ephesians 4:19: Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

Originally posted by LegalTender
so whats the story commdogg, still refusing me your proof of claim?? can you not direct me to a location in law which would prove my understanding false?? yes or no?? if you claim yes, than PLEASE, i beg of you, present me with proof. if you can not, than i, (and i advise any whom read this to do the same) will deem your claims false, and made out of hearsay. so far, NO ONE, opposing my understandings has given any direction.

Ephesians 4:19: Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

If you would kindly specify what claim you are referring to I will gladly try to be more specific for you. However, I don't think any level of proof will satisfy your ideological constraints. That said, I am willing to try. By the way we aren't in court. Nothing we say here is hearsay.

reply to post by commdogg

Oh ok, so by more liberal you mean more regulation? As all the things you probably are referring to, health care, prostitution, marijuana, are in fact HEAVILY regulated. Which is the only reason it exists there.

Still less heavily regulated than full on prohibition. Why even try to argue this?

So how many lives, dollars, or town hall meetings would it take to "switch" a security firm?

There isn't just one security firm. There are competing security firms. When you become unhappy with the firm you are with you become a customer with a firm who is less brutal with the general public. For any firm to survive long-term they would have to provide what customers want. This is simple economics.

What if they object to removal with force?

I object to using force to get what you want. When customers stop paying for their services they no longer have money to keep running the company.

What if the next company finds it prudent just to hire the same guys the last company did, as that sounds like a very cost effective strategy.

The management would not be so short sighted to make such a blunder (at-least in any long term surviving company). Customers would give their money to a firm that they don't hate. Look how many people hate the police. They wouldn't be customers at firms which are similar to today's police departments.

Your supply and demand free market argument is meaningless, when instability, natural or artificial may increase demand.

Please explain how an increase in demand would cause the free market to break-down.

Security can be abused and become self perpetuating.

Only the government protection racket of today is self perpetuating, not free market firms.

What happens when all the security firms form price fixing partnerships or merge?

An entrepreneur sees a large opportunity in the market and starts a new firm which undercuts the price fixing.

This model you defend isn't a society. It is a protection racket fitting of Sicilian gangsters.

No my friend, the only difference between what I am proposing, gangster protection rackets, and current system of government, is what I am proposing is the only one where the citizen is free to make his own decision as to how spend any money he wishes to spend on security/protection. The current system closely resembles a protection racket fitting of Sicilian gangsters, not what I am proposing.

Don't compare your points to current realities of warfare. Defend them. You're whole argument is that this will be better than it is now somehow.

Individual freedom and stopping violent theft is indeed better, even if it does share some negative similarities to the current system (though on a much smaller scale).

My challenge is that it will not, and likely be far worse. It will be exploitation under a corporate logo in lieu of a flag.

Unlike the current system, no citizen will be forced to hand over their money to corporate entities.

Asserting that this will be better, and then acknowledging a serious flaw with it comparable to the current dirty business of what state on state warfare is like, doesn't cut it.

Being better in every way but similar in one doesn't cut it? Interesting logic.

Originally posted by commdogg

Originally posted by LegalTender
so whats the story commdogg, still refusing me your proof of claim?? can you not direct me to a location in law which would prove my understanding false?? yes or no?? if you claim yes, than PLEASE, i beg of you, present me with proof. if you can not, than i, (and i advise any whom read this to do the same) will deem your claims false, and made out of hearsay. so far, NO ONE, opposing my understandings has given any direction.

Ephesians 4:19: Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

If you would kindly specify what claim you are referring to I will gladly try to be more specific for you. However, I don't think any level of proof will satisfy your ideological constraints. That said, I am willing to try. By the way we aren't in court. Nothing we say here is hearsay.

1. are human rights still protected?
2. does the UDHR hold no grounds in a lawful society?
3. is the US still a common law jurisdiction?

and ya, i know we're not in court, but you knew what i meant by the statement, did you not?

Peter 2:19: They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity---for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.

Originally posted by commdogg

Originally posted by LegalTender
so whats the story commdogg, still refusing me your proof of claim?? can you not direct me to a location in law which would prove my understanding false?? yes or no?? if you claim yes, than PLEASE, i beg of you, present me with proof. if you can not, than i, (and i advise any whom read this to do the same) will deem your claims false, and made out of hearsay. so far, NO ONE, opposing my understandings has given any direction.

Ephesians 4:19: Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

If you would kindly specify what claim you are referring to I will gladly try to be more specific for you. However, I don't think any level of proof will satisfy your ideological constraints. That said, I am willing to try. By the way we aren't in court. Nothing we say here is hearsay.

oh N just one more. is it not a mans right to deny representation by any government?

reply to post by Azp420


The point is it IS regulated. Like alcohol sales here.

Simple economics doesn't address force or ethics. The assumption these firms would be ethical is juvenile.
These firms would have the ability to extort money. This probably wouldn't be a small corruption either but an endemic business practice industry wide. The only one left to stop them would be another firm, that likely engages in the same underhanded tactics.

So whomever has the most money gets to buy the gun toters that everyone else must then live with? They then get to dictate martial policy to these people? Do I need to even go into detail about why that's scary or is it plain enough on its face?

Free markets don't regulate private armies. Governments do. Oh wait. Private armies would have to regulate themselves. Oh wait, they don't do that typically.
So by your logic, private firms never conduct unethical business practice?
In a pure dog eat dog economy "entrepreneurs" would be target practice for the larger firms.
What you are proposing is pure economic class rule, where those with resources are in charge. It sounds to me like feudal society.
No one would be forced to hand over money to the corporate system? I suppose whoever takes over the infrastructure industries will just do it for free then. Not to mention the private security guy that wants a bonus at gun point.
Welcome to circular logic. War is bad when nations do it, but its an acceptable evil when a corporation does it? Huh?

Here is the problem with seaspray cop man nice of him to answer all our questions but cops dont have the education or the law degree they and this guy is answering the legal side from his training and his side any normal citizen can argue with this the law is not hard to understand the idea that cops are legal experts is a joke. they dont have much education and again trained in their community college for a cop certificate

the idea that the cops are better to understand the law then an average citizen is ridiculous police are no smarter and no more moral ethical then the average folks.

the skirt the law and practice their law from the other side of the ring that supports their revenue generating and self preservation and to justify their own purpose

they are a direct enemy of freedom and the American people and do not serve the people but the selves

funny how the police think they are superman. like the guys in the Army who think they are special and then they find out that you have been through green beret and Ranger school, cops are like that they think they have all this training and ability and they dont. being a cop easy passing ranger school and green beret school super hard, cops your not bad asses ok

power corrupts and cops are no more moral and with the power less then the average person.

we have to handcuff the cops take away tasers and some guns, limit their power put the people back on top and make cops peace officers not nazi cops cops and people and judges need to worship the law like a religion or they cant do their job


first right is the right to be left alone and the cops must protect you from themselves first thing

got to change the whole industry and stop the cop hero worship

the cop here is trying to do a good thing but again he thinks he is talking to the little people and he is high above us we need to take that power away and fix this

police number 1 enemy of our freedom police state

Originally posted by LegalTender

Originally posted by commdogg

Originally posted by LegalTender
so whats the story commdogg, still refusing me your proof of claim?? can you not direct me to a location in law which would prove my understanding false?? yes or no?? if you claim yes, than PLEASE, i beg of you, present me with proof. if you can not, than i, (and i advise any whom read this to do the same) will deem your claims false, and made out of hearsay. so far, NO ONE, opposing my understandings has given any direction.

Ephesians 4:19: Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

If you would kindly specify what claim you are referring to I will gladly try to be more specific for you. However, I don't think any level of proof will satisfy your ideological constraints. That said, I am willing to try. By the way we aren't in court. Nothing we say here is hearsay.

1. are human rights still protected?
2. does the UDHR hold no grounds in a lawful society?
3. is the US still a common law jurisdiction?

and ya, i know we're not in court, but you knew what i meant by the statement, did you not?

Peter 2:19: They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity---for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.

Human rights are protected as a matter of law, yet we all know they are violated all the time. Examples abound in ICC prosecutions for war crimes in Bosnia, Sierra Leone, etc. Legal distinction is different than an air tight protection. Its illegal to unlawfully kill people everywhere yet it still happens. One of the distinct moral obligations of a ethical government is to uphold those rights, including its agents. IS there anything else you need from me on that?
The UDHR, I assume you mean the Universal Declaration on Human Rights? It does have bearing in law, as under the US Constitution's supremacy clause, all treaties entered into by the US government have force of law. The UDHR, as a document defines fundamental freedoms in human rights, terms appearing in the UN Charter. Since the US is party to the document, the US government is required to respect the meaning of the terms in the UDHR. So yes, it has force of law, however international law is never as smooth as what we think of domestically, since flippant policy generally allows member states to get away with it. Basically, any member of the UN Security council can veto any sanction, so diplomatic alliances typically supersede rule of law on most occasions.
Yes the US is historically a common law jurisdiction, but common law is always superseded by codified law, and case law, meaning anything defined in statute, or anything decreed by the USSC that overrides common law, is the new legal standard.
Anything else?
Comm.
BTW, I don't dislike your questions, I just dislike your assertion that I'm making it up.

reply to post by LegalTender


Governments claim sovereignty. Claims of sovereignty include substantive and territorial jurisdictional claims. They are also self enforced. Meaning, you can claim yourself free, yet if it isn't recognized, you will be required to assert it in the face of force for it to be legitimate. That's the way it works. Simple enough? Not paying your taxes is just a crime to TPTB.
Comm

reply to post by commdogg

The point is it IS regulated. Like alcohol sales here.

You're really still arguing that regulation is less liberal than prohibition?

The assumption these firms would be ethical is juvenile.

I've shown how the free market ensures firms act to the will of the people (their customers). Show where you think I have made a mistake but please don't call me juvenile.

The only one left to stop them would be another firm, that likely engages in the same underhanded tactics.

I'm not sure why you think all the corrupt firms would have lots of customers and the non-corrupt firms no customers. Perhaps if you elaborate or give some reasons for why you think this will be?

So whomever has the most money gets to buy the gun toters that everyone else must then live with?

You may hire whatever private security firm you please.

They then get to dictate martial policy to these people?

No. Who would continue to support such a firm? Firms on the free market are motivated by profits. There is no profit in attempting to establish martial law.

Free markets don't regulate private armies.

That's where you're wrong. The point doesn't seem to be getting through that people will not be forced to give money to these entities, therefore if the entities don't act to the will of the people there will be no money to act in any way. Is this so hard to understand?

So by your logic, private firms never conduct unethical business practice?

Of course they do, the free market and existence of competition just reduces it.

I suppose whoever takes over the infrastructure industries will just do it for free then.

No, a voluntary and mutually beneficial transaction will take place.

Not to mention the private security guy that wants a bonus at gun point.

Sigh... Because that's a great way to retain customers right? Now you're either trolling or I'm genuinely fearful about who they'll give a badge and a gun to.

War is bad when nations do it, but its an acceptable evil when a corporation does it? Huh?

What is evil is being forced with the threat of violence to help fund these large scale wars. With so many citizens against war, I highly doubt any corporations attempting to wage war for resources will have many customers to fund their efforts. Don't even try to compare the two.

reply to post by seeashrink


Now I have to ask myself. Why did it take self, so long to click on this thread? I've been arrested thirtyone times.
All from 91 to 97. Always stupid crap, never a violent arrest. I was getting so well known with this one dept. the officers started searching for ways not to take me in. Sometimes they found em. Anyway the only bad experience came on an arrest for a fifty thousand dollar warrant that had gone out on me. Veteran officer same
dept. he didn't know me at all.
No big deal really, just that when the officer could see I was in total compliance. Face down in a seven eleven parking lot, obeying all commands. Standing two feet behind the souls of my shoes with his gun pointed at my back. Waiting for back-up. The officer says, " hey dude get up and run". All I said was," negative ".
His back-up was there almost before I could finish that one word. One of the offficers who knew me. He was all,
officer____ are you being mean to Randy? Why? Isn't he a criminal? I was shocked at the response." Just holster that sidearm happy ". The officer who knew me had me up, handcuffed, and down the road in less than thirty seconds. All salutations aside I asked, "should I watchout for that guy"? He said," hell, everyone should watch out for that guy". nothing else was said.


kinda scary when I think about it.
I hope you enjoyed my little positive adddition to your thread amoungst all the clattering.
Flag is up.

What seems to not be sinking in that in a free for all world, those with the resources to take, will win. Period. Self regulating armies do not exist.

Corporations exist to feed their bottom lines, meaning they will undercut consumers, fellow corporations, etc in order to increase profits. Hence, it is a juvenile argument to conclude they will self regulate because ethical operation is more profitable. Companies will make the most profitable decision, right or wrong, every time. If no regulation exists to limit their options then ethics is meaningless.

The free market will also not exist, well amongst us common folks anyway, as the resources for advantage will be monopolized by the economically advantaged. Those with legitimacy in a trade economy are those that will be prepared to back their positions with force. What law would prevent it? Who would step up to prevent abuses? Are we to expect that out of charity some other rich warlord would bring his private army over here to enforce human rights? Again, how is any of this better?
BTW, I apologize, I didn't mean to call you juvenile. I meant your argument was juvenile.
Comm

reply to post by commdogg


thank you. thats all i was getting at really. and yes, i'll admit, i was feeling much aggravation towards you. but only cuz i had the feeling you knew wut i was getting at, and just didn't want to say. and yes, i let my frustrations take part in my many replies. a place which they don't belong. again i thank you. also, i never felt any anger towards you. and i fully enjoyed the argument. thats one of the many faults i have, but one which im happy to hold. also, i never had the feeling your a bad guy. you stuck to the law every step of the way, and you only asked for the "right" questions. and though i know the feeling may not be mutual, i feel i have a new found friend. i may even come to you for legal advice in the future,

Psalm 1:1: Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.

reply to post by commdogg


If the majority of people want a government so that it can keep firms ethical, why would the majority of people become customers of unethical firms rather than ethical firms in the absence of government?

Who would step up to prevent abuses?

Private security. If the majority of people are currently happy with the way government security prevents abuses then there should be no reason for them to alter the way their money is spent freedom of choice is the only change.

reply to post by LegalTender


Just remember, you can believe anything you want to believe. If you want someone else to get on board with it, you have to argue it effectively.

Sticking to my carefully worded questioning is a feature of the trade. The reason I don't step out of the boundaries of law is because I can't argue against the consequences if I do. If I stay narrow then I can do as I please.