H. Rearden on August 17, 2008, 11:41:23 am
In the story are their cops in the future?

Rocketman on August 17, 2008, 10:13:37 pm
Good question, but the story hasn't gone that far yet.  Judging from the reverence that they hold for individual rights I would say that if they were that they in the future are like what police officiers USED TO BE like.  Back then they were also know as "Peace" officers and they're job was to protect an individuals rights instead of enforceing the law.  Sidebar...When was the last time that you heard the police being refered to as a "peace officer".  Thought not.  :-[

Leviathan on August 19, 2008, 06:15:20 pm
There's one service police perform, in theory, that is beneficial to society.  They, in theory, act as defensive agencies.  Without any group empowered to steal from you to finance them as a charity service, they have to charge for the service or run on voluntary charity.  Without government behind them, there would likely be competition entering the market.

In practice, their monopoly status combined with the "free" nature of the service provided ensures that they don't do any such thing.  The fact that the law itself is often constructed in opposition to this goal certainly doesn't help.

Somehow I doubt that without centralized law and governance, there would be a specific police agency.  Remember, this is the author that was purportedly called "that crazy anarchist" by Heinlein?  Also note that the kids don't have any indoctrination to obey someone simply because they're in that position of authority.  The cop brandishes a gun and says stop, they run away from him like the maniac he is  ;D

Rocketman on August 19, 2008, 07:29:51 pm
I would say that if they were that they in the future are like what police officiers USED TO BE like.

Well I did say "if"  ;D

Rocketman on August 22, 2008, 02:31:34 pm
There's one service police perform, in theory, that is beneficial to society.  They, in theory, act as defensive agencies. 

Have to disagree with you on this quote Leviathan.  If I remember there was a infamous incident that happened in Washington D.C. back in 1976.  There was a house where a couple of women lived upstairs and one woman downstairs.  One day two punks slipped in downstairs and robbed the downstairs woman who they then gang raped.  The two women called the cops who eventually came out and found the doors and windows locked so they left.  The two upstairs women then tried to get the cops attention without result who then left but they did get the two punks attention.  They came upstairs and then raped and robbed the two women.  The aftermath was that after the two upstairs women sued the city because the police did not protect them.  The judge in the case ruled that the police are NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROTECT THE VICTIM.  Their job is to arrest the criminal after the crime has occurred.  To the best of my knowledge that ruling has never be overturned.

Scott on August 27, 2008, 12:19:45 am
In fact there have been several other District Court and SC rulings to that effect. The only legal duty the cops have is to protect public property, and to "keep the peace," a function so vague as to be effectively meaningless, and for which no citizen can have grounds to sue in court.

Leviathan on August 27, 2008, 02:12:27 am
Yeah, heh.  I said in theory.  The theory that most people believe in.  The one they use to justify police even existing as such.  Ask twenty people (who aren't anarchists or libertarians) what benefit police serve, and their answers will generally be to enforce the law or to protect them from criminals.  Just because police are in fact not that, doesn't change why people want them there.

In other words, I said in theory.  I didn't specify whose.  That if people really understood the true duty of police officers having nothing to do with that role they'd dismiss their police departments in a heartbeat.  At least the most common reaction I've gotten is disbelief when I cite those court cases you mentioned.  Though the most common follow-up has so far been a desire to make them be defenders of the people rather than to realize the concept is inherently flawed and needs replacement with something that actually does it.

Oh, and those (plural) rulings have no reason to be overturned.  The law is quite clear.  The police are under no obligation whatsoever to defend anybody.  You'd think those rulings would make headline news.  Instead nobody's ever heard of them.

Rocketman on August 27, 2008, 09:17:03 pm
Leviathan:  Your right.  The average person in this country can't see much further than the end of his nose when it comes to violations of individual liberty.  As long as they can afford to live in the house where they live, they've got food on the table and they're children get a "education" courtesy of the government they're satisfied.   >:(  Man O Man are they in for a rude awakening in the not too distant future!!!

Leviathan on September 01, 2008, 03:56:40 pm
And it's been shown that people do start to evolve the defensive organizations when centralized government goes away.  Even if they're popularly portrayed as gangs, or mercenaries, or insurgents, they usually find they're best able to keep the "official" government at bay when they provide security for those who they live amongst.  They don't get milk from their cows by beating it.  The cocaine markets, for instance, are primarily controlled by opposition to the main government.  It's very civilized.  Nobody dares rip anybody else off.  And the opposition defends them against government coming in and taking away one of the few livelihoods the farmers there can actually maintain at this point in time.  Of course, it's easier to get killed out of hand if you cross them, but that's kept in check by the fact that they can either cater to the cocaine business or most of the farmers will find somewhere else to deal.