The Militarization of American Law Enforcement

[Ted Striker]

.

[Ted Striker]

.

[Roland]

"Big middle class = power and spending is spread out, and not kept in the hands of a few rich, like in the 20s"

As long as the middle class reelects incumbants almost no matter what, it is politically weak.

"On speculation."

The nature of the future. Yet compared to uncle Alan and 99 % of economists, I'm a forecasting god. Ok, doesn't say much...

"It means that margin calls were tightened in response to the technology crash."

Oh, that one. You said "investment", when talking speculation... well, that is a minor issue.

"And all of these economies didn't have as much to work with than the US did, due to huge war debts."

Work with... what ? The US repatriation of funds was a huge blow to europe.

"Central Bank does those the last 2 things."

The Fed ?

"Independent from whom?"

From anyone with a vested special interest in the conduct of monetary policy.

"Demand can be subtley influenced by government by the way it regulates the money supply."

It needs to keep the multipliers going (risk 1), and the velocity going (risk 2). For potential negative outcome -> Japan.

"And again, those services are broadly diversified. And even moreso, those services are diversified globally."

US TOTAL service exports are small. Maybe 2-3 % of GDP. Big junk of that is tourism.

[Wraith]

--"The farmers formed an organization called the Grange"

Yes, these were the people I was talking about, in association with the Progressive party and, later, the railroads themselves.

You also seem to have missed where I pointed out the government's "solution" to the problem. They raised long-haul rates. Not exactly a help to farmers.
I think you totally missed the point I was trying to make. Oh well. You're arguing econ with Roland. I'm starting to think this is a case of selective blindness.

--"Because mainly the railroads were abusing their power in rural areas where there was often one carrier."

Correct, but the "solution" was worse the disease. This monopoly would have been broken by the trucking industry anyway, and we quite likely would have had it earlier if the government hadn't stepped in.

--"The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed by a 51 - 1 vote in the Senate and by a unanimous vote by the House."

So what? Look at how the Patriot Act was passed. Just because it passes by large margins doesn't mean it's either Constitutional or a good thing.

--"Why don't you think for yourselves and can the self-righteous "theories.""

I do think for myself, which is why I ignore liberal columnists. Their "facts" rarely venture beyond the realm of massive spin, when they have any reality at all.

--"Tell me how they "gave" them monopolies."

Um... Like I said, the Interstate Commerce Commission. They did not "fix" the problem, as you seem to think. They were the ones who gave it force of law and extended it from the few areas that were only served by one railroad to the entire nation.

You even quote some of this (pre-ICC, no less) bias yourself.

In issues of safety, the law favored railroad companies, not railroad employees.

Sounds like a government problem to me.

Wraith
Vuja De': the strange feeling you get that nothing has happened before

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ramo
You were referring to political persection, which the hunter-gatherers do not committ, not war.

There isn't really politics there.

Only small time conflicts for which you can be killed, eaten or what ever.

They haven't developed the idea of politics exactly, but if there is dispute between tribes, they don't exactly have a court, but rather war in a limited fashion.

Btw, aren't there "elders" in h&g societies?

And hunter-gatherers warred very rarely relative to civilized peoples, and these wars were far more tame (until they're introduced to civilized methods, of course).

that's cause they are not technologically developed.

It was? Perhaps Dino can clear us up on that. That ain't what he told me.

I'm not aware of your personal dialogues. It was the point I understood from his text, but perhaps it is my point which I simply found support for in his text.

Catalonia (and other areas of Spain, such as parts of Aragon) during the war.

And have they stayed that way?
During war extreme situations occur.

Anyway, I promise to read more about it and troll you again with facts

What's the distinction between societal evolution and development?

Evolution is the evolution of ideas, morality, philosophy, what ever.

Developement is more in the field of applied sciences.

Or at least that's what I meant.

By: "And a hundred years ago you could have cited many sources to "prove" that white people are inherently superior to everyone else. That many scholars defend the status quo is nothing new."

Joe is questioning the validity of social "science." I don't see how your statement refutes his.

My point was the following:

He is questioning the validity of social science, but his statements are just the same as that social science and can be questioned the same way, therefore the questioning arguement is useless.

I can always claim about something that it's actually wrong and the mainstream simply haven't figured it out yet.

I can similarly cast doubt on my previous claim saying that the claim is wrong and the mainstream is right.

It is part of the theorem with which you work that you accept certain things.

To demonstrate:
Similarly to his claim, I could claim that world is not round but rather a 5D hexagon or something, and we've just not figured it out, just like previously we thought the world is flat and carried by giant tortuses.

By this I'm casting doubt on current theorems, but doing nothing to support my point since my base arguement for the claim is "this assumption is not necessarily true" and applies irrelevantly to the matter itself.

Bull. The epidemics assaulting Europe and China (small pox, measles, and the bubonic plague) at the time were far more disastrous to the quality of life than the breakdown of central authority (quality of life began decreasing for Europe by the end of the second century AD). And these epidemics are products of civilized life. Hell, the "Dark Ages" brought various agricultural improvements, and quality of life for Europe began increasing again by the 8th century.

To the best of my memory it was around the 9th or 10th century that the "3 fields" method was invented and agriculture improved. This was also affected by the climate getting warmer.

However, the quality of life was largely affected by the ability of a society to organize itself, and Anarchy can't really take care of people and organize them to work for common goals like other systems can.

It is true that authoritarian systems are highly dependent of the ruler, and a bad ruler makes them collapse.

It is exactly the case with the very wicked Christian Church. Quality of life dropped because there was no powerful enough govrenment in most areas to take care of such matters. Infact, the feudal monarchy system supressed the quality of life of the simple workers. Another quite faulty system.

But under the ancient republic and democracy regeimes, city-dwelling romans and greeks prospered.

That isn't true at all. Quality of life was improving over time, overall, barring the initial step to agriculture.

The christian church was preaching to keep life simple and basic, while it's leaders lead a quite ravish life style and so did many rulers.

The agriculture was in no way more advanced in the classical era, yet people lived better and longer lives. Because they had organized public works and some sort of sewers and baths, and roads and things.

All those things which feudalic rulers didn't care about and installed only in their palaces.

A lot of the feudalism in Spain ended a century earlier.

But Catalonia was the most industrialized province in Spain, and Barcelona was the industrial capitol of Spain.

Yet the syndicates of Catalonia outperformed their predecessors.[/quote]

Because feudalism is quite possibly less productive than anarchy.

And it would be fair to say that a "capitalist" system was in effect there, if you consider, for example, the US economy capitalistic. Was there free-market capitalism here? No? Has it existed in non-egalitarian societies? No.

I'll have to research more on that. Thanks.

Why?

Because it has the united power of more people who are capable of better production due to

a) being more people
b) being organized with some dealing with production and others monitoring it.

not all people can participate in matters of leadership of a group, once the group is too big. bigger groups are more powerful and therefore the leadership must be held by few organizers which get their right from the people.

I need to make a mod changing that.

Er... You can't

Maybe you can in CTP but I haven't mentioned that since it's not really civ

[Ramo]

There isn't really politics there.

My point exactly. People had no coercive authority over others in many cases. Therefore your assertion about civilization responsible for Joe's ability to express his ideas without fear of imprisonment is bollocks.

Btw, aren't there "elders" in h&g societies?

Sometimes, but their authority generally was based on respect, not the police.

It was the point I understood from his text, but perhaps it is my point which I simply found support for in his text.

I don't see that at all.

Again, this is what he wrote:
"It is the necessity in each society -if it is to be a society, not a rabble- to order the relations of men and thier institutional ways of achieving needed ends ... Organized power exists -always and everywhere, in societies large and small, primitive or modern- because it performs the necessary function of establishing and maintaining the version of order by which a given society in a given time and place lives."

I don't know where you're pulling this evolution or development or whatever from.

And have they stayed that way?

Only because the anarchists faced attacks by the commies (with the weapons Stalin supplied 'em with), making them severely outnumbered, and severely outgunned. Furthermore, the anarchist soldiers were out fighting the Fascists during the reactionary assaults by the gov't!

Evolution is the evolution of ideas, morality, philosophy, what ever.

Developement is more in the field of applied sciences.

You haven't explained why new science requires new morality, etc., and how this has ANYTHING to do with the seizure of power.

He is questioning the validity of social science, but his statements are just the same as that social science and can be questioned the same way, therefore the questioning arguement is useless.

Joe isn't relying on social "scientists" to rationalize his statements, but is providing the justification himself. And again, this whole argument is based on a misunderstanding. I agree with Dino and Joe in what they both [now] intend to say.

Bah, I shouldn't have gotton into this silly argument in the first place!

And if you want me to explain why I think calling sociology a science is bollocks, I'd happily do that.

To the best of my memory it was around the 9th or 10th century that the "3 fields" method was invented and agriculture improved. This was also affected by the climate getting warmer.

It isn't just that. The bubonic plague began receding from Europe (with a few exceptions, such as certain places along the Mediterranean) around the 8th century.

However, the quality of life was largely affected by the ability of a society to organize itself, and Anarchy can't really take care of people and organize them to work for common goals like other systems can.

That's bull****. Anarchism can organize people - it's just voluntary. Spain, again, is the principle example of what an anarchist society can do.

Look, go to your library and check out a book by George Orwell called "Homage to Catalonia." Then come back and tell me what anarchism can or cannot do.

It is exactly the case with the very wicked Christian Church.

I'm not very fond of the Christian Church either, but to blame them for the decrease of quality of life (over the Greek religion) is ludicrous.

Quality of life dropped because there was no powerful enough govrenment in most areas to take care of such matters.

There were powerful governments all around Europe! It's just that power was more concentrated than previously. The feudal lords, in fact, were quite a bit more authoritarian, in general, than the Roman government.

Infact, the feudal monarchy system supressed the quality of life of the simple workers. Another quite faulty system.

Yep, another authoritarian system.

But under the ancient republic and democracy regeimes, city-dwelling romans and greeks prospered.

That's bull. The Roman Republic has been romanticized, but in reality it wasn't all that great. There were huge, huge slave populations, for instance. Midieval life, in general, was quite a bit better than Roman life.

The christian church was preaching to keep life simple and basic, while it's leaders lead a quite ravish life style and so did many rulers.

As do all religions.

The agriculture was in no way more advanced in the classical era, yet people lived better and longer lives.

That's not true at all. Better agriculture (make no mistake, it became infinitely better with plows, etc.) implies better and longer lives.

Because they had organized public works and some sort of sewers and baths, and roads and things.

Which were not everywhere.

Because feudalism is quite possibly less productive than anarchy.

I repeat, feudalism, in the literal sense, was not in effect in industrial areas, but Western "capitalism." (personally, I like to call it corporate feudalism. )

Because it has the united power of more people who are capable of better production due to

United power for what? United power can be abused easily, and who says where this power should be directed?

a) being more people
b) being organized with some dealing with production and others monitoring it.

a - How does the current system imply more people than anarchism, and why is that a good thing; look at South Asia or China, for instance.
b - This "organization" adds overhead, makes a system ineffecient.

I hardly think it's fair to use Catalonia as an example, seeing as how society did not last-long term, in fact it died out quickly enough.

It didn't die out; it was assaulted by a power much, much bigger than it.

One of the more common compliants heard about anarchy is that without a government, who will protect us from brutal thugs?

Anarchism means no authority, not no government. Most anarchists advocate "libertarian" governments, including a responsible police force.

Lo and behold, they lost their government, and they got subjected to a brutal thug.

Which, I repeat, is due to size and firepower, not anything else. The anarchists, actually, were superior to their fascist, and liberal/Stalinist counterparts in terms of military competence.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
And if you want me to explain why I think calling sociology a science is bollocks, I'd happily do that.

Please do. I need to laugh more often.

[Ted Striker]

.

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's bull****. Anarchism can organize people - it's just voluntary. Spain, again, is the principle example of what an anarchist society can do.

Ukraine, also (though that wasn't industrialized) and numerous hunter-gatherer & agrarian societies.

[/QUOTE] The Roman Republic has been romanticized, but in reality it wasn't all that great. There were huge, huge slave populations, for instance. [/QUOTE]

Not to mention their massive aggression against their neighbors.

Anarchism means no authority, not no government. Most anarchists advocate "libertarian" governments, including a responsible police force.

That depends on how you define "government." I use the term to mean the same as the state - "an organisation with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence." It's a central rule making body which uses various coercive institutions (prisons, courts, police, etc.) to force people to obey it's dictates. It's a means by which a minority imposes itself on the majority. I envision an anarchist society organised around a federation of communes and community assemblies. I suppose you could call this a government, but the term becomes sort of meaningless then.

Most anarchists that I know do not advocate police, not in the modern sense anyway. Most crime is caused by poverty, poverty would be eliminated in Anarchy (since classes would be gone), therefore most crime would dissapear. A proffessional police force is unnecessary, and would be quite dangerous. What few anti-social acts remain could be taken care of without professional police by social pressure, arbitration, community meetings, isolation, removing the underlying social causes of crime, etc.

The claim about thugs taking over in Anarchy is ironic because the state is just a bunch of thugs with a monopoly over a particular area. This objection to anarchism implicitly assumes that ordinary people are somehow less moral or more prone to "thuggishness" then politicians. In practice, it's usually the other way around - power corrupts. If people are too "thuggish" to be free then they're far too "thuggish" to rule. The worst that can happen in Anarchism is that an authoritarian society would reemerge. The best that can happen in an authoritarian society is that it would become anarchist.

By any chance, are you a primitivist?

Not really, though I do sympathise with them. I tend to view civilization as a wash - it has had many ill effects and some good ones. I usually like the label Anarchist-Communist or just plane old anarchist.

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Seeing as how flagship, blue-chipper companies like Coca Cola (which is not service though), Mickey Dees, and IBM make most of their revenue from international markets, I find that hard to believe. Tourism?

A lot of the stuff they make is actually produced in third world sweatshops. National economies don't really exist any more. Most of the American working class lives in Indoneasia, China and other "colonies." Americans physically produce relatively little.

Gott himself?

Who's Gott?

[Wraith]

--"And so while all everyone waiting on this crystal ball solution to appears, more and more farmers go into bankruptsy."

So instead the federal government butted in and the farmers went into bankruptsy anyway, and then when something came along that would have actually fixed the problem it was prevented from doing so.

--"be "reasonable and just"."

Vague enough to mean absolutely nothing, which is why those kinds of restrictions are often written into law.
That way, when the reformers move on to the next target, the vested interests (in this case the railroads) can stick around and play with the rules.

--"How do you know the guy was a liberal?"

Looking at the text in his article.
Many of these people (liberal columnists) do self-identifiy, you know. I'm willing to accept their categorizations of themselves in most cases.

--"In fact, are all the articles and studies I've mentioned by "liberals"?"

Don't know, haven't checked into them all.

--"You're right. It's a governement responsibility"

You totally missed my point again.

The only government responsibility is to protect the rights of its citizens and to apply the law impartially and equally to all. When it does not do so you get things like the railroad cartels being able to hinder the trucking industry. It takes government cooperation for any abusive monopoly to exist.

--"Their business is, therefore, 'affected with a public interest.'"

That definition is so broad it covers nearly everything. It can easily be interpreted as support for communism, since application of those loose terms would allow government control of the entire economy.
This was also said by one of the least experienced Chief Justicies in US history. One who also said this:

For protection against abuses by legislatures the people must resort to the polls, not to the courts.--Chief Justice Morrison Waite, Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 134 (1876)

He also wrote majority opinion on a case that allowed states to impose, retroactivly, regulations on businesses located in other states. He was also the Chief Justice who effective gave corporations their legal-ficiton status as individuals (and this was in a railroad case, no less). This guy is not exactly the best model of constitutional law (or of how government protects us from "evil companies") you could have picked.

Wraith
"It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake."
-- H.L. Mencken

[Sirotnikov]

bah, I just wrote over 1500 words to reply to mobius, and now this.

I'll only tackle the easier things.

Sometimes, but their authority generally was based on respect, not the police.

Because the rest of the tribe acts as police.

If you disrespect the elders, the elders make the others come and eat you (yes I know, I'm associating you anarchists with man-eaters on purpose )

I don't know where you're pulling this evolution or development or whatever from.

Ok, what I'm saying is that you can't claim that a society that haven't evolved at all is an example of how you can evolve a different system.

The fact is, everone used to be in the primal form, but most evolved since and developed elites.

The societies you bring as examples haven't evolved at all - so they can't be an example of how evolving elites isn't natural.

You haven't explained why new science requires new morality, etc., and how this has ANYTHING to do with the seizure of power.

Blah, it's too damn long.

Joe isn't relying on social "scientists" to rationalize his statements, but is providing the justification himself.

But his counter arguement is a bad one.

He argued "those books mean nothing since their claims are wrong and will be refuted in the future".

I can say that same about his own claims.

And if you want me to explain why I think calling sociology a science is bollocks, I'd happily do that.

I'm not justifying that science at all.

But still it'd be nice to hear.

It isn't just that. The bubonic plague began receding from Europe (with a few exceptions, such as certain places along the Mediterranean) around the 8th century.

and the black plague came to take it's palce in the 14th century.
and still i'd imagine life in the 14 century was a bit better.

That's bull****. Anarchism can organize people - it's just voluntary. Spain, again, is the principle example of what an anarchist society can do.

Eh, I'll have to read bout that.

I still don't believe you, you communist liar

Look, go to your library and check out a book by George Orwell called "Homage to Catalonia." Then come back and tell me what anarchism can or cannot do.

Thanks.

I'm not very fond of the Christian Church either, but to blame them for the decrease of quality of life (over the Greek religion) is ludicrous.

The christian church was much more than a religion and infact was a seriously strong political body, that set the agenda around europe.

The Greek religion was far less binding and gave much more personal freedom.

There were powerful governments all around Europe! It's just that power was more concentrated than previously. The feudal lords, in fact, were quite a bit more authoritarian, in general, than the Roman government.

The difference was, that the Roman government cared in some way for it's citizens and developed things.

Feudal lords, did nothing for the people. It was an obvious abuse of power.

Yep, another authoritarian system.

I don't suggest just any authoritarian system.

I suggest one with bounds and regulations to assure the govt. stays benevolent towards the people.

That's bull. The Roman Republic has been romanticized, but in reality it wasn't all that great. There were huge, huge slave populations, for instance. Midieval life, in general, was quite a bit better than Roman life.

I disagree.

If anything you're romanticizing medieval life.

Medieval people had no infrastructure and were basically all slaves of their numbered masters.

During Roman time, slaves were a lesser part of population and there were ways in which slaves became citizens.

As do all religions.

Not true.
If I had known one bit about any eastern religion i'd probably be able to tell you something

But again, Judiasm.

It mainly preached for justice and for limited morality. It's control of a person's life and goals in life was never as complete as christianity, until the Jewish counter-reformistic orthodoxism starting from the 17th century.

That's not true at all. Better agriculture (make no mistake, it became infinitely better with plows, etc.) implies better and longer lives.

In general true, but remember that suring the classical era, people lived until the 50s and sometimes 60s as well while in the medieval era, 30-40 was the common life length IIRC.

Which were not everywhere.

but were somewhere, as opposed to medieval days where they were nowhere.

I repeat, feudalism, in the literal sense, was not in effect in industrial areas, but Western "capitalism." (personally, I like to call it corporate feudalism. )

Where were there capitalist industrial areas in in the medieval days?

United power for what? United power can be abused easily, and who says where this power should be directed?

Every good can be abused into evil. We must make boundaries against it.

Power should be directed for the good of society.

How can you build a power plant or a road if not by a centralized body?

Who says where this power is directed? In democracy the intent is for the people who choose people to lead them according to what they represent.

a - How does the current system imply more people than anarchism, and why is that a good thing; look at South Asia or China, for instance.

In china the life quality is poor because of misorganization and because there are more people than there is food and resources.

But more people are stronger than less people, assuming they have proper organization.

b - This "organization" adds overhead, makes a system ineffecient.

How can a system without people moniotring it be efficient?

There are people with different talents. Some are better workers, some are better organizers. A system should use it. It's true it can be misused, but I suggest to fix it. You simply suggest reverting to a simpler form of society.

It didn't die out; it was assaulted by a power much, much bigger than it.

I don't see how such power can be achieved with Anrachism.

That's the point - anarchism can't defend itself since defense requires some sort of "elites" for planning and controlling.

And you can't claim that it's simply a numerical difference, since history is full of smaller powers who were better organized and therefore defeated stronger communities.

Take Israel for example

Anarchism means no authority, not no government. Most anarchists advocate "libertarian" governments, including a responsible police force.

I advocate a responsible police force.
but most anrachists advocate a police force with no force.

Which, I repeat, is due to size and firepower, not anything else. The anarchists, actually, were superior to their fascist, and liberal/Stalinist counterparts in terms of military competence.

I don't believe you

I'll read that book.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Joe R. Golowka
Ukraine, also (though that wasn't industrialized) and numerous hunter-gatherer & agrarian societies.

And we all know how quility of life is great in ukraine

Not to mention their massive aggression against their neighbors.

Which says nothing about the well-being of it's civilians. If anything they gayned from the resources and slaves captured.

That depends on how you define "government." I use the term to mean the same as the state - "an organisation with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence." It's a central rule making body which uses various coercive institutions (prisons, courts, police, etc.) to force people to obey it's dictates.

That is what a government could be if directed towards evil.

However modern day governments observe laws which are needed to have bounds for a possible life of a society. If there is no "don't kill, don't steal" law, then people would kill and steal.

It's a means by which a minority imposes itself on the majority. I envision an anarchist society organised around a federation of communes and community assemblies.

In which case
a) you advocate the imposing of a majority of a minority
b) you can't create a huge assembly - you have to create representatives for "bigger scale" assemblies, in which you again create elites.

I suppose you could call this a government, but the term becomes sort of meaningless then.

No. Your problem is that you associate government with a totalitarian state.

Most anarchists that I know do not advocate police, not in the modern sense anyway. Most crime is caused by poverty, poverty would be eliminated in Anarchy (since classes would be gone), therefore most crime would dissapear.

This is rediculous.

Crime is caused be lawlessness and lack of morals rather than poverty.

Many poor people do not crime. Yet many rich people do crime, in hope to become richer. Crime is caused by Greed and caring for oneself over another.

Furthermore, classes aren't a cause for poverty rather a result. Classes don't really exist in non-monarchic/feudal societies.

Today classes exist as a way to describe differences between professions and income, which will not go away unless you give everyone the same pay no matter what they do.

A proffessional police force is unnecessary, and would be quite dangerous.

Incorrect, since crime is caused when people are greedy, not poor or rich.

A police is there to enforce laws which are agreed upon by society in which they serve.

What few anti-social acts remain could be taken care of without professional police by social pressure, arbitration, community meetings, isolation, removing the underlying social causes of crime, etc.

Oh, isolating criminals would be so effective when you don't really know who they are.

And Isolation is infact prison.
social pressure is infact taxes / fines.

The claim about thugs taking over in Anarchy is ironic because the state is just a bunch of thugs with a monopoly over a particular area.

The state has monopoly over law-enforcement, not about laws.

The state has to have monopoly over law-enforcement, otherwise, people could make up their own laws and enforce them.

This objection to anarchism implicitly assumes that ordinary people are somehow less moral or more prone to "thuggishness" then politicians.

not at all.

But there are proper mechanisms to stop politicians from getting thuggish. There also are mechanisms to stop people from getting thuggish. There are also mechanisms to have people become politicians and politicians lose thier status.

But politicians are needed since a horde can't rule itself in a non=representative form.

In practice, it's usually the other way around - power corrupts. If people are too "thuggish" to be free then they're far too "thuggish" to rule.

Not true.

What should be is a mechanism to filter out those who are to thuggish and prevent rulers from becoming thuggish.

The worst that can happen in Anarchism is that an authoritarian society would reemerge.

Yes, but that authoritaran society would not be as benevolent as todays democracy.

[Ted Striker]

.

[Ted Striker]

.