Ron,
I appreciate your cheers in support of my advocacy of state-hating, which I take--along with your eloquent emails--as a clear sign you also have a healthy hatred of this evil institution.
If so, please help me understand how an unashamed state-hater such as yourself can advocate (in your Petition) this same institution further empower its agents, viz., the police, to "protect" us against private violent "criminals."
Are not the Govt police vulnerable to the same perverse incentives of monopoly power as are all other state agents whose functioning you hate? Don't the Govt police use their privileged position to advance their own selfish interests at the expense of the powerless innocent citizens upon whom they prey?
As you know, I applaud the rest of your petition, recommending the removal of the police from prosecuting consensual acts between adults.
Best, Michael
Dear Dr. Mike;
What you say is quite truthful and does represent a genuine quandary and quondrum. Until we can get private police hired by ourselves to protect ourselves we are stuck on using what we have BUT we can direct their activities. If we very vigorously force the issue.
To do what would be needed we would basically have to fire the SFPD - and that ain't gonna happen - too many politicians. To use an example when an officer gets killed in the line of duty hundreds of police officers show up in tribute along with the usual gaggle of politicians.
How many police officers show up when an innocent civilian is killed by the police in tribute to the fallen victim of the police when their funeral is held? How about zero unless you count the cops ticketing parked cars at the funeral.
I would much rather prefer Murray Rothbard's version of the police any day.
However, what has transpired is an organization formed to "protect" us has become institutionalized. And as a result the police here or anywhere serves to preserve protect and defend itself and its activities to its betterment against the greater good of the public who through taxes pays the police their pay.
Not too far back the police here in San Francisco went on strike. Yet the City did not fall to pieces with massive amounts of robberies and murders and so on happening. When a judge issued an injunction against the strike the process server was given the run around by the striking police officers.
Why do the police need a union? It's for their betterment not the citizens. Look at the current memorandum of understanding and read how seniority takes precedent over experience, expertise and capabilities. It's a pure union agreement for the good of the police not the good of the citizens paying them.
Yes you're right it would be better if we could make the change happen. Sadly we can't change it without a major change in the bellweather of how and why the police have become the police and how we use them to enforce the useless laws the Morons of Sacramento and Mordor keep spewing out.
And to borrow a very Asian saying: To make the changes needed in how we use the police in their current utilitarian environment we would have to break the rice bowls of the politicians and the police.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
dredelstein@... wrote:
Ron,
I appreciate your cheers in support of my advocacy of state-hating, which I take--along with your eloquent emails--as a clear sign you also have a healthy hatred of this evil institution.
If so, please help me understand how an unashamed state-hater such as yourself can advocate (in your Petition) this same institution further empower its agents, viz., the police, to "protect" us against private violent "criminals."
Are not the Govt police vulnerable to the same perverse incentives of monopoly power as are all other state agents whose functioning you hate? Don't the Govt police use their privileged position to advance their own selfish interests at the expense of the powerless innocent citizens upon whom they prey?
As you know, I applaud the rest of your petition, recommending the removal of the police from prosecuting consensual acts between adults.
Best, Michael
Michael Edelstein wrote:
If so, please help me understand how an unashamed state-hater such as
yourself can advocate (in your Petition) this same institution further
empower its agents, viz., the police, to "protect" us against private
violent "criminals."
My answer: politics. We are a political party, and seek to foment
political change.
We can choose to run the police effort as a purely educational effort. If
we advocate the police backing off on victimless "crimes", and don't say
anything else, then in my opinion, we will be somewhat effective as
educators, but will further our public impression (among those who have
heard of us at all) as effectless purists.
The police department has a legally fixed minimum level of staffing. It
would be nice to change that, but we can't (right now). So if we advocate
that a bunch of police officers stop doing what they're doing, it would be
constructive and helpful to suggest something else for them to do. We all
agree that catching murderers is a good thing; until the anarchist
awakening arrives, that is still part of what nearly everyone perceives as
a job for the police. So it makes sense to suggest that the police spend
more effort doing that.
This makes the LP look like bringers of useful, concrete change, as well
as a *positive* force (X should happen), rather than utopianists and a
negative force (X should not happen). More people will (IMO) sign the
petition, and it will increase our traction for change in other aspects of
city politics.
~Chris
Chris,
Thank you for your response, which makes perfect sense from your perspective.
However my question was directed pointedly to Ron, who clearly brings to this discussion the endearing perspective of someone who hates the state with every eloquent fiber of his being.
Best, Michael
Dear Dr. Mike;
Thank You. And as the saying goes - you ain't seen nuttin' yet!!!
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Hmmmm - now what the heck did he mean by THAT!!!
dredelstein@... wrote:
Chris,
Thank you for your response, which makes perfect sense from your perspective.
However my question was directed pointedly to Ron, who clearly brings to this discussion the endearing perspective of someone who hates the state with every eloquent fiber of his being.
Best, Michael