4 ms·

LOL, exactly why do you think we need so many licenses, etc. If we don't have racketeering right now, how come individual police officers are allowed to keep t

by fleitz 12y ago

LOL, exactly why do you think we need so many licenses, etc. If we don't have racketeering right now, how come individual police officers are allowed to keep the proceeds of any drug money they 'find'? Also, don't most people pay taxes so the force 'protecting' them won't ostensibly take them off to jail? When the police break the laws that are supposed to protect you is there any recourse for the police, or do they investigate themselves? Exactly what we have is racketeering, however, we have no alternative forces from which to purchase protection. If you read any book on the modern nation state it will tell you that the state is defined as the organization with monopolizes and projects violence over a given geographical territory.

dragontamer 12y ago
If you read any book on the modern nation state it will tell you that the state is defined as the organization with monopolizes and projects violence over a given geographical territory. You mean... a libertarian book on the nation state. ISIS for example controls and projects violence over a region, but no modern country is going to recognize ISIS as a legitimate nation-state. If we don't have racketeering right now, how come individual police officers are allowed to keep the proceeds of any drug money they 'find'? Because there are 12,000 individual police departments in America and it is literally impossible to police them all. The ridiculous decentralization of American police forces leads to racketeering. Nations with a more centralized, top-down approach to policing do not have to worry about random 5-person police departments abusing the law in a small town in Nebraska somewhere. The fact of the matter is, random 5-person PD in the boonies answers to nobody, and such decentralization leads to racketeering. Thank you for proving my point. I know this doesn't sound right to you, but America is the libertarian wonderland you have been waiting for. And it leads to the problems you are apparently against. And if you don't believe me, then please tell me... what action can you or I take against this behavior? http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nebraska/nedce/4:2014cv03057/65558 http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nebraska/nedce/4:2014cv0305... I don't live in Nebraska. I can't vote for Nebraska judges. I can't elect Nebraska Sheriffs. I can't do anything about it, except avoid Nebraska.
- schoen 12y ago
  The definition of states as entities that exercise a monopoly of legitimate violence is fairly mainstream in political science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence That definition isn't only used by libertarians, though it's possible that libertarians are more likely to use the "violence" formulation rather than the "physical force" formulation. International recognition is possibly a separate issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state According to some theorists, there are states that aren't recognized as states, but may still be states. They may actually rule territory (perhaps quite a stable way) but other states still may not recognize them -- most often because other states support a different claim to rule the territory that the unrecognized state rules. A familiar example in Europe is Northern Cyprus, where there is a state-like entity that has ruled a particular territory with no practical physical challenge for a long time, but almost all other states in the world support a different entity's claims to that territory and wish that the existing ruling entity would dissolve or be absorbed into the other entity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cyprus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cyprus And there are a lot of other situations like that, often with positions on the claims determined by other political considerations.
  - dragontamer 12y ago
    Thank you for the response. I'll keep that in mind in the future.
- fleitz 12y ago
  Ok, so lets take podunk town out of the equation... How about all the laws the FBI breaks? How about when the FBI uses the exact same laws podunk town uses to seize money for their officers' personal gain? How about the ATF selling guns to the cartels? How about the CIA selling drugs to fund terrorism? How about your police force being so centralized that your President believes he has the right to summarily execute any US citizen, you've centralized your entire justice system into the hands of one individual, judge, jury and executioner. The US has centralized police and it's just as corrupt as many other decentralized forces. Also, many nations have centralized police forces that are corrupt. (Federales?)
rosser 12y ago
how come individual police officers are allowed to keep the proceeds of any drug money they 'find'? [Citation needed] No, I'm not asking for cites on civil asset forfeiture. I'm asking for documentation that individual cops get to pocket the seized cash. Otherwise, I'm calling bullshit, with prejudice.

by fleitz 12y ago

dragontamer 12y ago

If you read any book on the modern nation state it will tell you that the state is defined as the organization with monopolizes and projects violence over a given geographical territory. You mean... a libertarian book on the nation state. ISIS for example controls and projects violence over a region, but no modern country is going to recognize ISIS as a legitimate nation-state. If we don't have racketeering right now, how come individual police officers are allowed to keep the proceeds of any drug money they 'find'? Because there are 12,000 individual police departments in America and it is literally impossible to police them all. The ridiculous decentralization of American police forces leads to racketeering. Nations with a more centralized, top-down approach to policing do not have to worry about random 5-person police departments abusing the law in a small town in Nebraska somewhere. The fact of the matter is, random 5-person PD in the boonies answers to nobody, and such decentralization leads to racketeering. Thank you for proving my point. I know this doesn't sound right to you, but America is the libertarian wonderland you have been waiting for. And it leads to the problems you are apparently against. And if you don't believe me, then please tell me... what action can you or I take against this behavior? http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nebraska/nedce/4:2014cv03057/65558 http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nebraska/nedce/4:2014cv0305... I don't live in Nebraska. I can't vote for Nebraska judges. I can't elect Nebraska Sheriffs. I can't do anything about it, except avoid Nebraska.

schoen 12y ago
The definition of states as entities that exercise a monopoly of legitimate violence is fairly mainstream in political science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence That definition isn't only used by libertarians, though it's possible that libertarians are more likely to use the "violence" formulation rather than the "physical force" formulation. International recognition is possibly a separate issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state According to some theorists, there are states that aren't recognized as states, but may still be states. They may actually rule territory (perhaps quite a stable way) but other states still may not recognize them -- most often because other states support a different claim to rule the territory that the unrecognized state rules. A familiar example in Europe is Northern Cyprus, where there is a state-like entity that has ruled a particular territory with no practical physical challenge for a long time, but almost all other states in the world support a different entity's claims to that territory and wish that the existing ruling entity would dissolve or be absorbed into the other entity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cyprus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cyprus And there are a lot of other situations like that, often with positions on the claims determined by other political considerations.
- dragontamer 12y ago
  Thank you for the response. I'll keep that in mind in the future.
fleitz 12y ago
Ok, so lets take podunk town out of the equation... How about all the laws the FBI breaks? How about when the FBI uses the exact same laws podunk town uses to seize money for their officers' personal gain? How about the ATF selling guns to the cartels? How about the CIA selling drugs to fund terrorism? How about your police force being so centralized that your President believes he has the right to summarily execute any US citizen, you've centralized your entire justice system into the hands of one individual, judge, jury and executioner. The US has centralized police and it's just as corrupt as many other decentralized forces. Also, many nations have centralized police forces that are corrupt. (Federales?)

rosser 12y ago

how come individual police officers are allowed to keep the proceeds of any drug money they 'find'? [Citation needed] No, I'm not asking for cites on civil asset forfeiture. I'm asking for documentation that individual cops get to pocket the seized cash. Otherwise, I'm calling bullshit, with prejudice.