No Suicide For You!

[quote]Makavali wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Privatizing transportation requires a viable customer base. If rails fail in the private sector then they have no place in the public sector – this is the efficiency of a market correction. I suspect that publicly funded roads were too much competition for privately owned rails. If roads were privatized I suspect that the results would have been different as both means would have competed to bring consumers into the market.

I disagree. Privatization works for everything.

People stopped using our public transport the moment it became private. Before that you wouldn’t give a second thought to hopping in the bus. Because the new privately owned companies have the monopoly, it’s cheaper to run your own car and get from A to B. Parking costs included.

Another example is our government selling the telecommunications network. We pay outrageous prices for the slowest internet. Only in the last 2 years has over 512kbps become a mainstream speed. The highest available on what was previously a government owned corporation is 10mbps with 512kbps upstream. Doesn’t even compare to what other countries get.[/quote]

The distinction that needs to be cleared up here is that your government transferred ownership from one monopoly (itself) to another. To me there is no difference in a government monopoly or a corporate monopoly. Even in the US there is virtual monopoly on ISPs. One either has cheap, slow tele-com service or expensive, fast cable service.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The distinction that needs to be cleared up here is that your government transferred ownership from one monopoly (itself) to another. To me there is no difference in a government monopoly or a corporate monopoly. Even in the US there is virtual monopoly on ISPs. One either has cheap, slow tele-com service or expensive, fast cable service.[/quote]

So what you’re saying is you advocate privatization of the sector itself then. Well that works for me. As long as there is some system of control for the lot i.e. Policing should meet a minimum standard.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why murder a citizen in the name of protection? [/quote]

Why invade a country in the name of freedom?

Cops are instruments of the elite to maintain the status quo.

Maybe he wanted his fifteen minutes of fame. Look we’re still talking about him, mission accomplished.

I can’t get my head around suicide. To me tomorrow is always going to be better than today. Well except for the weather, that can always ruin my day, wheres the gun!

Ah, yes. We need officers completely and totally owned by those wealthy enough to hire and train them. Or, we could pretend each of us would volunteer for policing shifts. We’d all respond to domestic violence calls where, for example, a wife armed with a handgun has barricaded herself in a bathroom after having her ear burned near off on a stove top by her high/drunk ultra-violent husband.

We could also rely on Billy Bob and John Boy to track down the sexual predator who just snatched a 9 yr. old off her front lawn.

I agree with Sloth, sure there are corrupt cops, but there are corrupt cooks, mailmen, teachers, and all kinds of other professions too. I think the police system has it more right than more wrong.

Edit: I don’t think this story involved any corruption. They got a call, went to the call, and were attacked. What did you want them to do? Let this dumbass gnaw their arm off?

[quote]dk44 wrote:
I agree with Sloth, sure there are corrupt cops, but there are corrupt cooks, mailmen, teachers, and all kinds of other professions too. I think the police system has it more right than more wrong. [/quote]

The other part to it is this. If you don’t like certain laws the police enforce, to a strong enough degree, become an activist and persuade people to vote your way. Or, run for office yourself, and work to have laws changed from the inside. Why’s everybody so damned ready to go revolutionary (maybe a bit of an exaggeration, maybe not) when we still have a representative government?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The other part to it is this. If you don’t like certain laws the police enforce, to a strong enough degree, become an activist and persuade people to vote your way. Or, run for office yourself, and work to have laws changed from the inside. Why’s everybody so damned ready to go revolutionary (maybe a bit of an exaggeration, maybe not) when we still have a representative government?[/quote]

Because the government represents the people who throw the most money at it.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
The other part to it is this. If you don’t like certain laws the police enforce, to a strong enough degree, become an activist and persuade people to vote your way. Or, run for office yourself, and work to have laws changed from the inside. Why’s everybody so damned ready to go revolutionary (maybe a bit of an exaggeration, maybe not) when we still have a representative government?

Because the government represents the people who throw the most money at it.[/quote]

So what your saying is, I need more money.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dk44 wrote:
He could have easily killed himself without the cops attention. I agree that if you want to kill yourself you should be able. But just cuz you want to kill yourself, it doesnt mean you can attack an officer. And technically he did die, so he kinda achieved his goal anyways.

Before officers carried tasers there would have been a long drawn out talk with this gentleman to calm him down and take him to a hospital. There is no doubt in my mind that they provoked him (they knew he was unarmed) into an attack so that they could tase him and thus go home after an easy apprehension. Cops are lazy, they want to do the least work necessary like anyone else. Tasers make this possible.

The police are supposed to serve the public. The person who made the call was probably distressed and wanted to save this individual’s life. The cops FAILED this tax paying citizen and there will be no recourse.[/quote]

Because cops enjoy fighting naked dudes that are trying to bite? Pre taser days they would have beaten him with nightsticks or shot him.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ah, yes. We need officers completely and totally owned by those wealthy enough to hire and train them. Or, we could pretend each of us would volunteer for policing shifts. We’d all respond to domestic violence calls where, for example, a wife armed with a handgun has barricaded herself in a bathroom after having her ear burned near off on a stove top by her high/drunk ultra-violent husband.

We could also rely on Billy Bob and John Boy to track down the sexual predator who just snatched a 9 yr. old off her front lawn.[/quote]

Ridiculous, isn’t it?

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
The other part to it is this. If you don’t like certain laws the police enforce, to a strong enough degree, become an activist and persuade people to vote your way. Or, run for office yourself, and work to have laws changed from the inside. Why’s everybody so damned ready to go revolutionary (maybe a bit of an exaggeration, maybe not) when we still have a representative government?

Because the government represents the people who throw the most money at it.[/quote]

Imagine how much worse it would be with a private police force.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ah, yes. We need officers completely and totally owned by those wealthy enough to hire and train them.[/quote]

Absolutely! I strongly believe competition would bring the price of security services down enough for people even in the lower middle class to afford it. With affordable security all property owners would be benefiting every one.

Think about this: If one is a renter and his landlord has a contract with a local security agency then essentially he is protected because that agency would be responsible for the landlords property.

A renter is an extension of property; for example, the landlord would not want his tenant hurt because it would cause him to lose his rent and make him have to fill a vacancy. Likewise, security personnel would be hired in the same capacity for commercial enterprise as well.

Also, as a consumer maybe I wouldn’t do business with someone who didn’t offer this service.

Self protection is not only a free person’s right it is his responsibility. We have a government that makes us beholden to the protection it deems necessary. I find this unacceptable; most people who live in the “hood” also find it unacceptable. They aren’t even allowed to carry firearms to protect themselves and they are the ones who probably need it the most.

In general I think there are no areas of society that could not be handled by privatization and a firm understanding of property rights.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Ah, yes. We need officers completely and totally owned by those wealthy enough to hire and train them.

Absolutely! I strongly believe competition would bring the price of security services down enough for people even in the lower middle class to afford it. With affordable security all property owners would be benefiting every one.

Think about this: If one is a renter and his landlord has a contract with a local security agency then essentially he is protected because that agency would be responsible for the landlords property. A renter is an extension of property; for example, the landlord would not want his tenant hurt because it would cause him to lose his rent and make him have to fill a vacancy. Likewise, security personnel would be hired in the same capacity for commercial enterprise as well.

Also, as a consumer maybe I wouldn’t do business with someone who didn’t offer this service.

Or, we could pretend each of us would volunteer for policing shifts.

Self protection is not only a free person’s right it is his responsibility. We have a government that makes us beholden to the protection it deems necessary. I find this unacceptable; most people who live in the “hood” also find it unacceptable. They aren’t even allowed to carry firearms to protect themselves and they are the ones who probably need it the most.

In general I think there are no areas of society that could not be handled by privatization and a firm understanding of property rights.[/quote]

Uh-huh. And by whose authority do your rent-a-cops (since any Joe Public with enough money will acquire his own police force) perform a search, stop, or arrest? Just themselves and their wealth?

Which Joe Public will run a police force with agreeable standards of conduct and procedure? Should I recognize Joe Q’s purchased police force, as opposed to Joe P’s? Who polices Joe Q’s police force? My own police force? No, thanks.

As it is, I can use democratic means to change the laws police are sworn to uphold. I can act locally to petition changes in how my local police force conduct themselves. Your way comes off like a bunch of Mafia Don’s and their privately hired, and loyal, muscle.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And by whose authority do your rent-a-cops (since any Joe Public with enough money will acquire his own police force) perform a search, stop, or arrest?[/quote]

Rent-a-cops can only act under the mandate of their contract – whatever may be agreed upon. In other words, authority would be granted in the contract.

There would also be need for courts though they would not be like the ones we have today with elected officials. They would be payed by the guilty party – this is a good thing for justice. In this system in stead of jail (except for the most necessary offenses) justice would be payed back to he victim.

Since we’re on the subject, “assault on an officer” is a pet peeve of mine. Isn’t assault already a crime? Why should it be a special crime to assault a cop? Isn’t that tantamount to saying that they’re better than me or you, and we’re just second class citizens?

[quote]conorh wrote:
Since we’re on the subject, “assault on an officer” is a pet peeve of mine. Isn’t assault already a crime? Why should it be a special crime to assault a cop? Isn’t that tantamount to saying that they’re better than me or you, and we’re just second class citizens?[/quote]

That’s how I interpret it. Look at all the other special treatment they get. The police dept. will damn neat shut down a city to give an officer a funeral procession – even if that officer didn’t die in the line of duty. The implication is that they are saints because they wear a uniform.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
conorh wrote:
Since we’re on the subject, “assault on an officer” is a pet peeve of mine. Isn’t assault already a crime? Why should it be a special crime to assault a cop? Isn’t that tantamount to saying that they’re better than me or you, and we’re just second class citizens?

That’s how I interpret it. Look at all the other special treatment they get. The police dept. will damn neat shut down a city to give an officer a funeral procession – even if that officer didn’t die in the line of duty. The implication is that they are saints because they wear a uniform. [/quote]

It’s the least we could do for a person whose job was one of direct service to the community. You know, helping to track down and/or apprehend wanted rapists, murderers, and pedophiles. As for why the extra gravity for assaulting an officer…come on, common sense should answer that.

An assault on an officer can very quickly lead to a life threatening situation for both individuals, and the public at large. It’s something extra a guy with a warrant out for him will have to weigh before deciding if he’s going to try to shoot, knock out, wrestle away a cop’s gun, and initiate a high speed pursuit.

However, you’ll be glad to know that you can work to get your laws changed through our democratic process, to have the penalties for assault in general raised.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
conorh wrote:
Since we’re on the subject, “assault on an officer” is a pet peeve of mine. Isn’t assault already a crime? Why should it be a special crime to assault a cop? Isn’t that tantamount to saying that they’re better than me or you, and we’re just second class citizens?

That’s how I interpret it. Look at all the other special treatment they get. The police dept. will damn neat shut down a city to give an officer a funeral procession – even if that officer didn’t die in the line of duty. The implication is that they are saints because they wear a uniform.

It’s the least we could do for a person whose job was one of direct service to the community. You know, helping to track down and/or apprehend wanted rapists, murderers, and pedophiles. As for why the extra gravity for assaulting an officer…come on, common sense should answer that. An assault on an officer can very quickly lead to a life threatening situation for both individuals, and the public at large. It’s something extra a guy with a warrant out for him will have to weigh before deciding if he’s going to try to shoot, knock out, wrestle away a cop’s gun, and initiate a high speed pursuit.

However, you’ll be glad to know that you can work to get your laws changed through our democratic process, to have the penalties for assault in general raised.[/quote]

Really? Can you change them? I find it pretty doubtful.

[quote]conorh wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
conorh wrote:
Since we’re on the subject, “assault on an officer” is a pet peeve of mine. Isn’t assault already a crime? Why should it be a special crime to assault a cop? Isn’t that tantamount to saying that they’re better than me or you, and we’re just second class citizens?

That’s how I interpret it. Look at all the other special treatment they get. The police dept. will damn neat shut down a city to give an officer a funeral procession – even if that officer didn’t die in the line of duty. The implication is that they are saints because they wear a uniform.

It’s the least we could do for a person whose job was one of direct service to the community. You know, helping to track down and/or apprehend wanted rapists, murderers, and pedophiles. As for why the extra gravity for assaulting an officer…come on, common sense should answer that. An assault on an officer can very quickly lead to a life threatening situation for both individuals, and the public at large. It’s something extra a guy with a warrant out for him will have to weigh before deciding if he’s going to try to shoot, knock out, wrestle away a cop’s gun, and initiate a high speed pursuit.

However, you’ll be glad to know that you can work to get your laws changed through our democratic process, to have the penalties for assault in general raised.

Really? Can you change them? I find it pretty doubtful.[/quote]

You vote? Are you active in any issue/political groups?