Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber

Asinine, but yes, intelligible.

Well, and it has only one possible answer. "Should I try to do something that's impossible?"

Well, no, of course not, because it's impossible. h/t Rothbard

Clayton -

Clayton:

You might think you know what it means to freeze all commerce (I guess I should say all action) but you don't. It's an inherent contradiction because human beings act. They are always acting. They never stop.

Oh I see what you mean.  Yeah you're right cops cannot literally flash freeze everyone in place at a particular place in time.  They can set up a roadblock, order everyone out of their cars, handcuff every adult, sit them on the curb and then search their vehicles.  If they have something in particular they're looking for then they can search the cars until they find it.  They obviously think they found what they were looking for.

Clayton:

 The idea of dragnetting - stop-framing all action within some subset of the population - is inherently contradictory.

A dragnet is just a coordinated police search.  Common methodology includes things like roadblocks, systemized searches, checkpoints and things like that.  They're not claiming the power to stop time.

Wed. 12/06/06 20:16 EDT
.post #161

bloomj31:

I understand the economics involved I just see no reason why I should value two hours of someone else's time over potentially catching a criminal.

I won't tell you that you "should" value one thing over another. I would simply point out to people that this is a symptom of an inherently rotten system, and that such a system is not inevitable, but rather, the inevitable result of unquestioned acceptance of certain ideas.

bloomj31:

If they don't like it they can leave. If they choose not to leave they can take their grievances to the legal system. If they find no satisfactory recompense through the legal system then, as far as I'm concerned, their case is closed. The only thing they can then do is complain to people and hope someone listens. ... If you don't like it go away. If you don't go away then you understand that it's theoretically possible that you might be detained against your will for two hours.

Of course, but I think that, being universally obvious, this doesn't really offer anything new or "better" to people who don't know about libertarianism.

What I think is not universally obvious is the idea that what is currently monopolized by government can be offered on the market and that, in addition to greater choice, lower prices, higher quality and better service, consumers, by choosing how and where to spend their own money, would finally have the power to reward those who best serve them, and punish those who don't. For example, how many owners would dare allow mall security to handcuff every patron for two hours and ransack private property, all on the pretext of apprehending a shoplifter? Only government can continually get away with this abusive behavior; competitive, market enterprises can't afford it.

So while we all must manage, in our own ways, with the unpleasant daily realities of the "statist quo," we can additionally try to "spread the good word" and proselytize.

Well good luck with that.

Wed. 12/06/06 20:47 EDT
.post #162

bloomj31:

Well good luck with that.

Thanks.

 They're not claiming the power to stop time.

But I think this is the subtext by which dragnets are sold to the public. If the police can't stop time with a dragnet, then what exactly is it that makes the police power so special? There's more than one way to solve a problem and who says that the only or even the best solution to this was cordoning off an entire intersection and putting a lot of bystanders in danger, along with imposing costs on them that they didn't reasonably agree to by virtue of being in the public square in order to recover the stolen property of just another private entity (the bank)? 

A bank robber is not a danger to anyone except the bank tellers for the duration of the robbery and, after that, he wants nothing more than to just disappear. At the point this dragnet occurred, the bank robber was trying to disappear. So this is not a "public safety" issue at all, it's a "Wells Fargo wants their money back" issue. Which is fine for WF. Obviously, WF does not have the right to impose this kind of cost on the public on its own cognizance so I don't think the public police should do it on their behalf.

But returning to the original point - what can the cops do that WF's own security cannot? After all, the cops can't stop time, either. That's the question that needs to be answered. Why isn't the bank responsible for its own security? If someone steals my wallet, the cops aren't going to cordon off an intersection to catch the thief because, after all, I'm responsible for my own security. There's a very obvious failure to actually think clearly about public policy here and answer even the most elementary questions. This is precisely the kind of lobotomized public policy that the Constitution and liberal political philosophy in general is supposed to prevent.

Clayton -

Clayton:

  If the police can't stop time with a dragnet, then what exactly is it that makes the police power so special?

That's difficult to articulate.  One of the things that makes it special is that it derives its authority from the state which means that it represents the ultimate authority in the land.  That means that when the cops show up with their lights flashing and start ordering people out of their cars that those people are probably gonna do it because they'd be afraid not to. You can't buy that kinda fear.  It has to be imposed.  The cops represent the executive branch of the government and they have the full power of the law and the state behind them.  That's serious power.  Wells Fargo's security doesn't have that kinda authority.  There's also the understanding that the cops serve the public, not just some bank.  They'll wield that power for anyone who's on the side of the law, not just the person who can afford it (although money matters.)

Clayton:

 There's more than one way to solve a problem and who says that the only or even the best solution to this was cordoning off an entire intersection and putting a lot of bystanders in danger, along with imposing costs on them that they didn't reasonably agree to by virtue of being in the public square in order to recover the stolen property of just another private entity (the bank)?

There's always more than one way to solve a problem.  Perhaps this wasn't the ideal solution.  But it seems to have worked.  It also demonstrates the lengths the cops will go to catch a criminal.  That's a real demonstration of power and it creates fear that can't be bought.  People who live in this country agree to certain rules just by virtue of living here.  If they don't like it, they can try to change the rules, they can contest the rules in court or they can leave.  Now the question is: was this type of search within the boundaries of the law? On that I'm uncertain, I've been looking at case law to see.  I think it's arguable that it was overdone.

Clayton:

  the bank robber is not a danger to anyone except the bank tellers for the duration of the robbery and, after that, he wants nothing more than to just disappear. At the point this dragnet occurred, the bank robber was trying to disappear. So this is not a "public safety" issue at all, it's a "Wells Fargo wants their money back" issue.

It's not just about who he's a danger to, it's about what he's done.  People like that need to understand that they will be caught and when they're caught they will regret ever having tried to rob a bank.  The rules must be enforced or else they become meaningless.

Clayton:

 Which is fine for WF. Obviously, WF does not have the right to impose this kind of cost on the public on its own cognizance so I don't think the public police should do it on their behalf.

They do actually have the right to impose that cost on others because they pay their taxes (which are probably higher than yours) and they reside within the boundaries of the state and that entitles them to the same police protections that are available to everyone else.  That's part of the deal of living here.

Clayton:

 But returning to the original point - what can the cops do that WF's own security cannot? After all, the cops can't stop time, either. That's the question that needs to be answered.

I dunno, apparently they can't stop a bank robber.  But more importantly, they can't go out on the street, order people out of their cars and handcuff them, search the cars and then apprehend the suspect.  They don't have the authority.

Clayton:

 Why isn't the bank responsible for its own security? If someone steals my wallet, the cops aren't going to cordon off an intersection to catch the thief because, after all, I'm responsible for my own security.

Because they reside in the United States.  No one is singularly responsible for their own security, that's one of the best things about living here imo.  This isn't a free society. We're not all out their on our own. Who knows what the cops would do to protect you?  I don't have a crystal ball.

Clayton:

 This is precisely the kind of lobotomized public policy that the Constitution

Did you know that originally the Bill of Rights was not incorporated into the states?  That came way later.  The police power is one of the reserved powers left to the states by the 10th Amendment.  That means that states had at the founding almost unlimited power to execute their laws (because of the necessary and proper clause as well) unless they conflicted with the federal government's laws.  Now because of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause many of the civil protections previously only afforded to citizens from the federal government have also been expanded into protections from state governments but there is still great debate about their scope.

Clayton:

If someone steals my wallet, the cops aren't going to cordon off an intersection to catch the thief

Well...unless of course you're the Chief's son.  Then you can get no less than 10 cops specially assigned to the case of your missing cell phone.  Because after all, who needs to be responsible when you've got nepotism and a monopoly control on legal force.

 

@bloomj31

To me catching the criminal matters more than potentially wasting two hours time of people I couldn't care less about.

at least youre honest. Please tell me why its important to catch a criminal, if you "couldn't care less" about people? What do you care about, locking people in cages? You have said before that the coercive reappropriation of resources isnt de facto wrong, so what about "robbing a bank" is soooo evil that it became important to apprehend this guy?

That means that when the cops show up with their lights flashing and start ordering people out of their cars that those people are probably gonna do it because they'd be afraid not to. You can't buy that kinda fear.  It has to be imposed.  The cops represent the executive branch of the government and they have the full power of the law and the state behind them.  That's serious power.  Wells Fargo's security doesn't have that kinda authority.  There's also the understanding that the cops serve the public, not just some bank.  They'll wield that power for anyone who's on the side of the law, not just the person who can afford it (although money matters.)

thats not exactly accurate. First of all, people pull over, allow themselves to be handcuffed, searched etc., not because of some noble respect for the law, but because of consequences. They perform that way for anyone who is aggressive and appears capable of violence. Ask someone who has been to iraq, where soldiers performed the very same police-type actions and were largely considered to be illegitimate occuppiers. Furthermore, the police do not serve the public, they serve the state nominally, and their own interests typically. If police were actually supposed to "protect and serve" then why would the us supreme court rule that police have no duty to protect you? Private security has no such constraints, they literally do serve their customers.

But more importantly, they can't go out on the street, order people out of their cars and handcuff them, search the cars and then apprehend the suspect.  They don't have the authority.

why do you think the government insists on this monopoly?

Malachi:

 Please tell me why its important to catch a criminal, if you "couldn't care less" about people? What do you care about, locking people in cages? You have said before that the coercive reappropriation of resources isnt de facto wrong, so what about "robbing a bank" is soooo evil that it became important to apprehend this guy?

I care most about the rules of the social order being upheld.  I care about order and the rule of law being enforced.  It's not that I don't care about people.  It's that I think the trade off between two hours of some random people's time and catching a criminal seems worth it.    Robbing the bank is not objectively evil but it does represent a clear disregard for the established rules of our social order.  You're not supposed to rob banks.  Why?  I don't really have an ultimate reason or a grand objective rule yet.  It probably has something to do with the evolutionary adaptive response to those who take things in a personal context but I really can't say yet I'm still searching for the answer.

Malachi:

 First of all, people pull over, allow themselves to be handcuffed, searched etc., not because of some noble respect for the law, but because of consequences. They perform that way for anyone who is aggressive and appears capable of violence.  

Right but that sort of fear is amplified when it's understood that there's no one else to turn to.  There is one law, one set of rules, one source of authority.  That makes them that much scarier to deal with which is preferable in my mind to the private alternative.  I don't want people thinking they get a choice as to who they obey.  I want them to understand that there's no alternative.  That's the kind of fear that only a monopoly on force can create.  Does it have its drawbacks?  Absolutely.  But I feel it's absolutely preferable to the private alternatives I've seen proposed.

Malachi:

  If police were actually supposed to "protect and serve" then why would the us supreme court rule that police have no duty to protect you?

Reference?

Malachi:

 Private security has no such constraints, they literally do serve their customers.

Exactly that's what makes such a system a nightmare to me.  I don't mind living in a society where people can choose what kind of toothpaste they buy but I don't want everyone to have a choice over what laws to obey.  I want there to be only one choice for everyone, take it or leave it (or try to elect people to formally change it.)   Who in their right mind would want to live in a social order where the law and its executors openly and intentionally served the desires of men as opposed to the letter of the law itself?

Malachi:

 why do you think the government insists on this monopoly?

Because they couldn't have singular authority otherwise.  Now why wouldn't you want them to have that monopoly?  So that the law would be more responsive to you?  That really sounds appealing?

I care most about the rules of the social order being upheld. I care about order and the rule of law being enforced.

not trying to be harsh, but you dont seem familiar with the concept of rule of law, as it is diametrically opposed to the idea of endowing agents of the state with special powers. But I really want to know how you define "rules of social order" because putting 19 people in handcuffs for 2 hours isnt my idea of any kind of social order, and these rules in question are more unilateral than truly social.

Right but that sort of fear is amplified when it's understood that there's no one else to turn to.  There is one law, one set of rules, one source of authority.  That makes them that much scarier to deal with which is preferable in my mind to the private alternative.

when youre staring down the barrel of a gun, that stuff becomes significantly less important. As for "no one else to turn to," do you acknowledge the potential for abuse?

Reference?

Dechaney v. Winnebago county, Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, or the evening news

I don't want everyone to have a choice over what laws to obey.

well then youre tilting at windmills because people will always be able to choose to violate the law.

Who in their right mind would want to live in a social order where the law and its executors openly and intentionally served the desires of men as opposed to the letter of the law itself?

anyone who understands human action.

Because they couldn't have singular authority otherwise.  Now why wouldn't you want them to have that monopoly?  So that the law would be more responsive to you?  That really sounds appealing?

because monopolies are inefficient and prone to abuse, and yes, it sounds very appealing to be responsible for procuring my own police and legal services so I could refrain from funding abusive police departments and court systems, and instead pay for police etc. that I prefer.

Malachi:

not trying to be harsh, but you dont seem familiar with the concept of rule of law, as it is diametrically opposed to the idea of endowing agents of the state with special powers.

What's your idea of the rule of law?

Malachi:

 But I really want to know how you define "rules of social order" because putting 19 people in handcuffs for 2 hours isnt my idea of any kind of social order, and these rules in question are more unilateral than truly social.

It's conceivable that the police overstepped their constitutional bounds.  The rules of social order cannot be defined in a simple paragraph or something they involve an understanding that people have with one another.  You're not supposed to rob banks.  If the people who were detained really feel like the cops overstepped their authority then they can complain about it.  I don't really know how all of those people feel though.  Now if the police did overstep the bounds then perhaps they did violate the understanding of the social order as much as the bank robber did.  But still I'd rather they be able to do that every now and again and get the guy than not.  

malachi:

 do you acknowledge the potential for abuse?

Sure it can and obviously does happen.

malachi:

 Dechaney v. Winnebago county, Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, or the evening news

I don't watch TV for insights into the SCOTUS but I'll definitely review the cases.  Looking through them now.

Malachi:

 well then youre tilting at windmills because people will always be able to choose to violate the law.

Ofcourse but if the system is set up right they'll have serious reservations before doing so and, just as important, they will come to seriously regret having done so in the first place.

Malachi:

 anyone who understands human action.

Well then you guys who "understand human action" so well can go somewhere else.  I'm really interested to see what happens in your free society.

Malachi:

 because monopolies are inefficient and prone to abuse

So what if they can be inefficient and prone to abuse?  Those are drawbacks that you cannot tolerate under any circumstances?  Like you'd take apart the whole system just for that?

Malachi:

 yes, it sounds very appealing to be responsible for procuring my own police and legal services so I could refrain from funding abusive police departments and court systems, and instead pay for police etc. that I prefer.

Well I don't ever want you to be able to do that.  I hope I can help to prevent such a thing from ever coming to pass.

What's your idea of the rule of law?

the same rules apply to everyone.

The rules of social order cannot be defined in a simple paragraph or something they involve an understanding that people have with one another.  You're not supposed to rob banks.

on the contrary, young padawan, the rules of social order are quite simple. Do not violate people or property. Violence is only permitted as a defensive reaction to aggressive violence, and as a last resort. Youre not supposed to rob banks because youre not supposed to rob anyone, because it violates their property and likely their person as well. At very least, 18 of those 19 individuals could respond to you by saying "I didn't rob anyone, why was I assaulted and detained?"

If the people who were detained really feel like the cops overstepped their authority then they can complain about it.

yah, thanks. How about this:

if the bank feels that badly about being robbed, then they can complain about it.

But still I'd rather they be able to do that every now and again and get the guy than not.

I'm still trying to figure out what your opinion is based on, if not the interests and benefit of those individuals involved.

Ofcourse but if the system is set up right they'll have serious reservations before doing so and, just as important, they will come to seriously regret having done so in the first place.

none of which requires a state, or even a monopoly on police/law. And we already know that markets are more efficient, so what is your justification here?

Well then you guys who "understand human action" so well can go somewhere else.  I'm really interested to see what happens in your free society.

haha, nope, sorry, I'm gonna stay right here and watch the house of cards come tumbling down.

So what if they can be inefficient and prone to abuse?

I'm sorry, I dont mean to be offensive, but do you work for a living? Do you feed yourself? Because its hard for me to imagine someone who earns his own keep saying something like that. "who cares if the system pisses away my wealth and doesnt provide what it is supposed to?"

yes, I think inefficiency and abuse are very good reasons to find a better way. Wouldnt you agree?

Well I don't ever want you to be able to do that.  I hope I can help to prevent such a thing from ever coming to pass.

What, you actually realize that you need to piss my wealth away too, because the abusive and inefficient monstrosity that exists would wither and die if it couldnt rob me and steal from me?

Thurs. 12/06/07 22:51 EDT
.post #163

bloomj31:

If you choose to live in this country, you choose to live by its laws.

Do you think this is true for every citizen?

bloomj31:

I care most about the rules of the social order being upheld. I care about order and the rule of law being enforced.

Do you think "the rule of law (is) being enforced" for every citizen?

bloomj31:

There is one law, one set of rules, one source of authority. ... I don't want people thinking they get a choice as to who they obey. I want them to understand that there's no alternative.

Do you think this applies to every citizen?

Malachi:

 the same rules apply to everyone.

I seriously do not understand why you would prefer that rule of law to our current rule of law.

Malachi:

 on the contrary, young padawan, the rules of social order are quite simple. Do not violate people or property. Violence is only permitted as a defensive reaction to aggressive violence, and as a last resort. Youre not supposed to rob banks because youre not supposed to rob anyone, because it violates their property and likely their person as well. At very least, 18 of those 19 individuals could respond to you by saying "I didn't rob anyone, why was I assaulted and detained?"

I do not think that actually reflects the reality of the social order but instead what you would want the social order to be.  Obviously human nature is not what you wish it were.

I would tell any of those people that the reason they were detained was because they were caught in an extraordinary circumstance where the police could not fully observe their due process rights at that time and the circumstance seemed to warrant an irregular form of detention.  If they refused to accept that then they could file suit against the police station.  I'd be interested to see how the case played out, I do think they might have a strong due process claim.

Malachi:

 yah, thanks. How about this:

if the bank feels that badly about being robbed, then they can complain about it.

They did.

Malachi:

 I'm still trying to figure out what your opinion is based on, if not the interests and benefit of those individuals involved.

I don't know what you mean.

Malachi:

 none of which requires a state, or even a monopoly on police/law. And we already know that markets are more efficient, so what is your justification here?

The market process would undoubtedly be more efficient in certain ways, but that kind of efficiency is not something I'm interested in when it comes to dispensing the law.

malachi:

 I'm sorry, I dont mean to be offensive, but do you work for a living? Do you feed yourself? Because its hard for me to imagine someone who earns his own keep saying something like that. "who cares if the system pisses away my wealth and doesnt provide what it is supposed to?"

How much money did you pay in state income taxes last year?

Malachi:

 yes, I think inefficiency and abuse are very good reasons to find a better way. Wouldnt you agree?

Yes and no.  Abuse is more of an annoyance to me than inefficiency but then determining what constitutes abuse and inefficiency can be difficult.  Obviously this might be an example of abuse but I'm not seeking an alternative way after seeing this though I might like to know if the cops violated those people's constitutional rights.

Malachi:

 What, you actually realize that you need to piss my wealth away too, because the abusive and inefficient monstrosity that exists would wither and die if it couldnt rob me and steal from me?

No it's because I don't trust you to have any idea what the law ought to be for you or anyone else.  And I hope you're never allowed to do the sort of damage I imagine you'd do if you could make those choices for yourself.  

Also did you read the opinions for these cases you recommended?

MMMark:

 Do you think this is true for every citizen?

Ideally yes.

MMMark:

 Do you think "the rule of law (is) being enforced" for every citizen?

I'm not sure I understand the question.  Every citizen all the time everywhere?

MMMark:

 Do you think this applies to every citizen?

Ideally yes.

Thurs. 12/06/07 23:25 EDT
.post #164

bloomj31:

Ideally yes.

How about actually?

bloomj31:

I'm not sure I understand the question. Every citizen all the time everywhere?

What I'm getting at is, do you think there is a class of citizens who can legally ignore the law?
For example, do you think there is a class of citizens who can commit legal robbery, legal theft, legal assault, legal murder, etc?

bloomj31:

No it's because I don't trust you to have any idea what the law ought to be for you or anyone else. And I hope you're never allowed to do the sort of damage I imagine you'd do if you could make those choices for yourself.

Do you mean, you don't trust Malachi, or you don't trust anyone?

MMMark:

 What I'm getting at is, do you think there is a class of citizens who can legally ignore the law?

For example, do you think there is a class of citizens who can commit legal robbery, legal theft, legal assault, legal murder, etc?

You mean like the IRS?  I'm just assuming that's where you're going with this line of questioning.

MMMark:

 Do you mean, you don't trust Malachi, or you don't trust anyone?

There are people who I'm more inclined to trust than not but none of them are libertarians.  Malachi appears to be a libertarian.  I can't be exactly sure what kind of legal system he'd like but if it's anything like I've read about in my studies of libertarianism it sounds like an absolute nightmare.

Thurs. 12/06/07 23:42 EDT
.post #165

bloomj31:

You mean like the IRS?

For example, yes, like the IRS.

bloomj31:

There are people who I'm more inclined to trust than not but none of them are libertarians.

So, you trust some people to, in your own words, "... have (some) idea what the law ought to be for you or anyone else"?
Just not libertarians?

Also, will you please answer my other question: "How about actually?"

I'll rejoin the conversation later. Must go to bed now. Thanks and good night.

I'll think about those questions tomorrow I'm tired too.  I'm going to keep researching these cases Malachi recommended I'll have something to say about them tomorrow I think.

bloomj31:

I care most about the rules of the social order being upheld.  I care about order and the rule of law being enforced.

The problem with your beliefs is that you offer no idea as to how these rules are supposed to come to be.  Furthermore, there are few people, if any, on this forum that do not want rules of social order.  In fact, in my opinion and probably many others here on this forum, we believe that the state actually goes against the social order.  That is, its very nature is antisocial.  The state is against voluntary exchange, which is the key component to social cooperation.  

bloomj31:

You're not supposed to rob banks.  Why?  I don't really have an ultimate reason or a grand objective rule yet.  It probably has something to do with the evolutionary adaptive response to those who take things in a personal context but I really can't say yet I'm still searching for the answer.

Have you ever heard of the golden rule?  Take a look at the wikipedia page on it and see how many cultures have the golden rule in one manner or another.  And these are just the most famous ones.  The idea of reciprocity is that you respect me and what's mine, and I do the same for you.  The very nature of the state goes against this, which is why you see so many articles posted on these forums about the hypocritical things the agents of the state do.  It is a hypocritical organization.

bloomj31:

There is one law, one set of rules, one source of authority.  That makes them that much scarier to deal with which is preferable in my mind to the private alternative.  I don't want people thinking they get a choice as to who they obey. 

First, either you grossly misunderstand our positions or you have purposely created a strawman here.  When something is law, that is what the community abides by.  Different private defense agencies would exist in the same area, but this is not the same as saying that you can murder and hire your own PDA in order to get out of it.

Second, there is no one law, one set of rules, one source of authority now.  Every town, county, and state has different laws and difference enforcement agencies already, nevermind the federal government and its own laws and agencies.  These laws are sometimes the same, but many of them are different.

bloomj31:

I don't mind living in a society where people can choose what kind of toothpaste they buy but I don't want everyone to have a choice over what laws to obey.

No.  As I just said, this is not what happens in anarchy.  If something is law, it is the law.  You cannot have simultaneously one law that says "Thou shalt not murder" and another that says "Thou shalt murder if desired".  Laws are social norms.  You cannot simultaneously have a social norm that says to drive on the right side of the road and another that says to drive on the left side.  That goes against the nature of what a norm is.  Laws are just social norms that have to do with disputes that would otherwise turn to violence.

bloomj31:

Who in their right mind would want to live in a social order where the law and its executors openly and intentionally served the desires of men as opposed to the letter of the law itself?

So you prefer a social order where the law and its executors secretly and intentionally serves the desires of men?

bloomj31:

So what if they can be inefficient and prone to abuse?  Those are drawbacks that you cannot tolerate under any circumstances?  Like you'd take apart the whole system just for that?

Nazi Germany, North Korea, the former USSR, and many others are or have been systems based on statutory law.  The United States is another country that has statutory law and has had slavery, Jim Crow laws, laws allowing a husband to beat his wife, laws imprisoning Japanese in concentration camps during WWII, conscription, bombing of civilian populations, etc.  In more recent memory it has bombed civilian populations, created the TSA which is continuing to expand its power, it has massive double standards regarding police and the law, a massive debt that will fuck over the citizens of this nation, and other transgressions.  These transgressions are not on the scale of Nazi Germany or North Korea, but don't forget that the USA has the largest prison population in the world as a percentage of its population.  If the government continues to claim more power, this nation will someday transgress on the scale of hellholes like North Korea and Cuba.

Alright I am preparing responses.  Gotlucky, what exactly is your understanding of private law based on?  I will read it.

It's based on a lot of things, and nothing in particular.  However, the problem with your argument was that there would be multiple "laws" about the same thing in any given community.  This is absurd.  There cannot be simultaneously a law prohibiting murder and a law allowing murder.  This is true in any type of system of law, whether it is statutory law, common law, customary law, or whatever.

Couldn't sleep.

When did I say that you wouldn't be able to figure out if murder was illegal or that you wouldn't be able to figure out what side of the street to drive on in a free society?  I've got more faith in you than that.

By the way you're right that not all the laws in the country at both a federal, state, city and local level are exactly identical but they are all ultimately measured by one standard: The US Constitution.  Disputes are adjudicated in basically one system (though there are ADR type systems but they work within the shadow of the law) and people can only appeal so many times before they have to accept the ruling.  It's wonderfully simple.

Also does anyone else have anything they'd like me to read so that I can understand their position on private law?  I'll read it.  Hell I'm even reading Machinery of Freedom tonight just because.  I want to better understand what a free society legal system might look like.  Any suggestions?

I won't respond to the rest of those questions tonight but I will respond to this one:

 

Gotlucky:

That is, its very nature is antisocial.  The state is against voluntary exchange, which is the key component to social cooperation.

I would actually argue that the key to mutual reciprocity is trust and good faith.  I need to know that if I do something for you you'll fairly exchange with me otherwise I will not trust you and I will not want to trade with you.  If you really screw me over I might want to kill you.  In a small community, social pressures can be enough of a disincentive to cause you to want to trade fairly and some kind of primitive legal system could substitute for my desire to harm you.  But we don't all live in small communities.  We live in a very large one.  The state now provides this sort of standardized trust backbone and takes the need for me to seek revenge out of my hands and puts it into a standardized arena.  Now I know that if you screw me in a trade I can sue you and if you really screw me that I won't have to kill you because the courts might throw you in jail.   In this sense the government provides the backbone for social cooperation to exist.  Ofcourse such a thing could be provided by a free market but it would be very different and far less reassuring in my opinion, at least based on what I've read but I'm open to read more.  So I think that in this particular sense that the state encourages social behavior by taking on the sole duties of outsourcing the norm enforcement.  This is not to say that the state always helps or that this system is flawless because it definitely isn't but in this way I think it does help and this is one of the reasons I feel that the state society is desirable over the free society, at least for me and I don't think I am alone in this feeling.

bloomj31:

When did I say that you wouldn't be able to figure out if murder was illegal or that you wouldn't be able to figure out what side of the street to drive on in a free society?  I've got more faith in you than that.

Well, that's not what I said.  You repeatedly stated that you didn't want people to be able to pick and choose not only which laws but who to obey.  This implies two things, the first that in anarchy, people can choose to break the law and not have their actions be considered criminal, and the second is that without rulers, people can choose who they want to "obey" (strange word to use considering we are talking about anarchy), so there are in fact multiple laws existing about the same idea at the same time.  In other words, that you can have a law prohibiting murder and another allowing it.  The point about which side of the street to drive on was to demonstrate that a social norm cannot conflict with itself.  In other words, you cannot simultaneously have a social norm for driving on the right side of the road and a social norm for driving on the left side of the road in the same way.  And laws are social norms, they are just social norms regarding disputes that would otherwise turn to violence.

bloomj31:

I've got more faith in you than that.

I'll chalk that comment up to sleep deprivation.

bloomj31:

By the way you're right that not all the laws in the country at both a federal, state, city and local level are exactly identical but they are all ultimately measured by one standard: The US Constitution.

No, they are not ultimately measured by one standard.  The US constitution is basically ignored and hardly ammended when it is.  Furthermore, only the federal government is supposed to be bound by the US constitution, and it rarely follows what's in there.  States have their own constitutions, and I suspect that individual states do not follow theirs any more than the federal government follows its own.  And then their are cities and towns, and they have their own laws and ordinances which can and often do conflict with state and federal constitutions.  In short, this claim is simply not true.

bloomj31:

Disputes are adjudicated in basically one system (though there are ADR type systems but they work within the shadow of the law) and people can only appeal so many times before they have to accept the ruling.  It's wonderfully simple.

I did not realize that your main concern was simplicity.  'nuff said.

bloomj31:

I would actually argue that the key to mutual reciprocity is trust and good faith.  I need to know that if I do something for you you'll fairly exchange with me otherwise I will not trust you and I will not want to trade with you.  If you really screw me over I might want to kill you.  In a small community, social pressures can be enough of a disincentive to cause you to want to trade fairly and some kind of primitive legal system could substitute for my desire to harm you.  But we don't all live in small communities.  We live in a very large one.  The state now provides this sort of standardized trust backbone and takes the need for me to seek revenge out of my hands and puts it into a standardized arena.  Now I know that if you screw me in a trade I can sue you and if you really screw me that I won't have to kill you because the courts might throw you in jail.

No.  Firstly, the vast majority of people enter into voluntary exchange daily without ever using violence, aggressive or defensive.  Secondly, people break this trust right now in this current system.  The state that provides this backbone you desire does not stop people from having disputes.

bloomj31:

If you really screw me over I might want to kill you...Now I know that if you screw me in a trade I can sue you and if you really screw me that I won't have to kill you because the courts might throw you in jail.

I hope you can understand why people here have accused you of being a psychopath.

bloomj31:

Ofcourse such a thing could be provided by a free market but it would be very different and far less reassuring in my opinion, at least based on what I've read but I'm open to read more.  So I think that in this particular sense that the state encourages social behavior by taking on the sole duties of outsourcing the norm enforcement.  This is not to say that the state always helps or that this system is flawless because it definitely isn't but in this way I think it does help and this is one of the reasons I feel that the state society is desirable over the free society, at least for me and I don't think I am alone in this feeling.

No system is flawless, but the statutory system highly distorts the purpose of law.  The more centralized a system, the less flexible it is to correct flaws.  The US is becoming more totalitarian every day.  Now, maybe you like totalitarian states, but the problem here is that when the state fucks up, there is no one to turn to, and the more totalitarian a state is, the more it fucks up.  Statutory systems can only get worse.

Gotlucky:

 Well, that's not what I said.  You repeatedly stated that you didn't want people to be able to pick and choose not only which laws but who to obey.  This implies two things, the first that in anarchy, people can choose to break the law and not have their actions be considered criminal, and the second is that without rulers, people can choose who they want to "obey" (strange word to use considering we are talking about anarchy), so there are in fact multiple laws existing about the same idea at the same time.  In other words, that you can have a law prohibiting murder and another allowing it.  The point about which side of the street to drive on was to demonstrate that a social norm cannot conflict with itself.  In other words, you cannot simultaneously have a social norm for driving on the right side of the road and a social norm for driving on the left side of the road in the same way.  And laws are social norms, they are just social norms regarding disputes that would otherwise turn to violence.

There are some social norms which are so widely held that they need not be codified to be understood.  They're just understood.  They're intuitive.  They reflect an understanding of your "golden rule" which I believe is itself a reflection of an evolved universal human understanding.  You think of these intuitive social norms when you consider private law because that's what you know.  But I know you don't actually study the law.  You seem to have no idea how diverse and complicated some issues are.  Now I know that in a free society many of these concerns would no longer be concerns because they'd be incompatible with the NAP.  That's part of the reason I rejected the NAP.  I realized force could no longer be used to achieve certain ends.  But that's not even the point.  I don't imagine that a free society would have wide discrepancies or uncertainties about murder.  But not every legal issue raised in this system regards murder.  They're not even all criminal issues.  If you were to actually sit down and start to study our current common and statutory law system you would realize it is incredibly complicated because it contains the aftermath of millions of cases and their decisions and layer upon layer of statutes, all reflecting a disembodied collective wisdom that's been developed over time.  If a private society chose to retain none of this out of principle, they'd be left in the dark about how to solve certain issues and then they'd leave it to the consumers!  No thanks.

Gotlucky:

 No, they are not ultimately measured by one standard.  The US constitution is basically ignored and hardly ammended when it is.  Furthermore, only the federal government is supposed to be bound by the US constitution, and it rarely follows what's in there.  States have their own constitutions, and I suspect that individual states do not follow theirs any more than the federal government follows its own.  And then their are cities and towns, and they have their own laws and ordinances which can and often do conflict with state and federal constitutions.  In short, this claim is simply not true.

You don't know what you're talking about.  The Constitution provides the basis for the legal analyzation of every single case I've ever looked at.  Statutes are measured against the constitution.  Case law is measured against the Constitution.  The problem is that not every justice agrees on what the Constitution means or the degree to which the federal government has power over the state governments etc.  This is an ongoing issue.

Gotlucky:

 I did not realize that your main concern was simplicity.  'nuff said.

Uh...yeah.

Gotlucky:

 No.  Firstly, the vast majority of people enter into voluntary exchange daily without ever using violence, aggressive or defensive.

Ofcourse.  That's partly because they don't even think about the trust issue, it's a built in resolution from the state.  It's also partly because human beings have a social/cooperative nature.  But they still require trust to deal with others, particularly strangers.  Reciprocal altruism is an evolved system of social cooperation.  It means that people give moral consideration to others as much as they do to themselves or those they already are familiar with.  But they still need to know that they're dealing fairly with someone and the state provides that backbone.  Could it be provided by a free society?  Absolutely.  But it wouldn't be a backbone of force per se it would be a backbone of reputation.  But then you can't even own your reputation in a free society (slander/libel suits would be considered unjust.)

Gotlucky:

 Secondly, people break this trust right now in this current system.  The state that provides this backbone you desire does not stop people from having disputes.

Indeed disputes are inevitable.  The state then becomes the arbiter.  And people know that will happen, they don't have to guess.  It's understood.  Unless people go to an ADR but their decisions typically have to be in line with existing law.  Though there are many cases I've found where judges have refused to vacate arbitration judgments which is ironic.

Gotlucky:

 I hope you can understand why people here have accused you of being a psychopath.

Sure they're armchair moralists who don't study psychology, history or the law. They've mentally neutered themselves because they're pacifistic.  I'm not.  That doesn't make me psychopathic, it just makes me human and all humans are capable of violence, even the ones who think they aren't.

Gotlucky:

 No system is flawless, but the statutory system highly distorts the purpose of law.  The more centralized a system, the less flexible it is to correct flaws.  The US is becoming more totalitarian every day.  Now, maybe you like totalitarian states, but the problem here is that when the state fucks up, there is no one to turn to, and the more totalitarian a state is, the more it fucks up.  Statutory systems can only get worse.

O ye of little faith.  I recognize that you don't think states have the power to correct their mistakes.  Part of that is borne of ignorance and part of it does reflect history to some degree but not entirely.  What has happened in the past does not necessarily tell us what will happen in the future.  People can obviously change.

You mentioned slavery and jim crow laws.  Did you know that slavery was mostly in the states that ultimately seceded from the Union?  Did you know that after the Confederacy lost the Civil War and slavery was formally abolished in 1865 by the Thirteenth Amendment that many of these states re-elected southerners and immediately started passing Jim Crow laws, a form of codified racism?  How could people be so hungry for freedom from the union and yet so callous towards black people? Because those were the prevailing views at the time.  Even 40 years later, the doctrine of "separate but equal" won out in Plessy v Ferguson.  It was another 58 years after that that the ruling in Brown v Board was announced and there was still opposition to desegregation at the time.  12 years later came the Civil Rights Act which codified rules against discrimination in public, within private industry and in the workplace.  It took 100 years for the prevailing moral views to change and it's not like the issue of racial discrimination ended there.  This process reflects the changing attitudes of the people over time.  So it could be with anarchism but I highly doubt it.  I think that instead people might come to realize that Medicare is unsustainable.  But perhaps my faith will not be rewarded we will see.

it's a built in resolution from the state. 

The state does not preceede human interaction, that's not even possible.

Vive:

 The state does not preceede human interaction, that's not even possible.

Yes but human interaction does not always lead to peaceful interaction.  Every human has the potential for violence as well as for cooperation.  War is in our nature as is the capacity to trade.  Reciprocity cannot occur when there is no trust.  I mean you can look at gang wars as an example of what happens when people don't feel they can go to the law over disputes and where a reputation of brutality and zero tolerance becomes necessary to encourage reciprocity and fair play.  Our legal system grounds the trust necessary for reciprocity in a universally available legal system and a final enforcer.  This means that people can engage in cooperative behavior with the knowledge that if someone screws them they won't have to take matters into their own hands.  Thus human interaction has led to the creation of the state as the final arbiter, a function that I hold in the highest regard.  Could a market provide this?  Yes, ofcourse.  But there couldn't be one arbiter.  No one would have that right unless the consumers gave them that right in which case they're a de facto supreme court.

But there couldn't be one arbiter

There never is an de facto external arbiter.  Such a macro entity can not exist in the way I think you think it can - what there is is something that upholds a certain set of expectations that many people just happen to use to settle disputes.  Other people use mob bosses, their own justice, mommy and daddy, or whatever.

The ideal of a single arbitration system simply doesn't exist - and anyway it could be thought about would be the same way any other massive centralized idea would be thought of - as a crazy subsidy

Well now we're just splitting hairs.  

Private courts do exist.  ADRs are a good example.  But they make rulings within the shadow of the law.  What that means is that the decisions they come to will attempt to emulate what they think the courts would've done anyways.  They will attempt to use existing precedent as grounds for a ruling, right or wrong.  The benefit of ADR is that it's a shorter process than taking the more traditional state court route.  The downside is that the rulings may seem unfair to people and state courts have been extremely reluctant to vacate their findings except under specific conditions.  The conditions for reversing an arbitrated decision are actually quite strict.   One will find often find binding arbitration clauses in TOS policies.  This is because arbitration is usually preferable to actual court for many of these companies for reasons I've already stated.

Mob bosses are a form of extralegal service.  But the only reason anyone would go to them would be if they thought their particular issue couldn't be solved legally.  Presumably because the dispute in question is over something that's illegal.

Vigilante justice and intrafamiliar justice obviously exist but they represent a fraction of potential disputes.  Not everyone is Batman or in a fight with their mommies and daddies.

The fact that a certain percentage of cases are handled outside of state courts (ADRs not being a really good example for the reasons I've already stated.) doesn't mean that the state's legal framework doesn't provide a backbone to social cooperation within our social order.  Not to say that this couldn't be provided in a market but it is to say that the process would necessarily be different and not the kind of different I find interesting.

Vive:

  what there is is something that upholds a certain set of expectations that many people just happen to use to settle disputes.

 

People will either use this "something" because they have to or because they choose to.  I don't want other people to have a choice.  Obviously choice cannot be eradicated but it can be severely reduced.

Of course seeing how close the banks are to governments it is arguable if robbing them is immoral in the first place. In which case punishing bank robbers isn't even a good thing.

I seriously do not understand why you would prefer that rule of law to our current rule of law.

And I dont understand why you think society overall, or your condition specifically, is better when some individuals have special priveleges and everyone else is basically a serf. Its probably axiomatic, which is why you dont understand. I am an egalitarian, you are a hierarchist.

I do not think that actually reflects the reality of the social order but instead what you would want the social order to be.

please define "social order."

I would tell any of those people that the reason they were detained was because they were caught in an extraordinary circumstance where the police could not fully observe their due process rights at that time and the circumstance seemed to warrant an irregular form of detention.

dont get caught in extraordinary circumstances. Got it.

I don't know what you mean.

I mean that you seem to think that the assault, arrest, restraint, and detention of 18 individuals for 2 hours isnt a violation of the social order. Society is made up of people acting. As long as they arent violating another's person or property, or threatening to do so, thats social order. One guy, with no "legitimacy of the state" to "strike fear into the hearts of men" was able to disrupt the social order for maybe 3 minutes in a bank. Thats a meaningful violation of social order. You think it is potentially fine to attempt to rectify this temporal disorder with a state-sponsored violation of social order, as if there werent enough victims already. But you withhold ultimate judgment because your place in the hierarchy doesnt bestow upon you the power to make a real judgment as to whether anyone's rights were actually violated.

The market process would undoubtedly be more efficient in certain ways, but that kind of efficiency is not something I'm interested in when it comes to dispensing the law.

You know a system can be characterized in terms of inputs, products, and waste. When you tell me you dont care about using these stolen monies to produce justice efficiently, you tell me you dont care how many inputs it takes to make a product. And when you tell me the propsect of police abuse isnt troublesome to you, then you tell me you dont even care if you get one product. So I'm wondering if you even believe that human behavior is goal-directed. Do you?

How much money did you pay in state income taxes last year?

$0 (FL). So are you a governor? That might explain why wasting tax dollars and police abusing the citizenry is kind of a "meh" issue for you compared to...whatever it is you mean by "social order."

Abuse is more of an annoyance to me than inefficiency but then determining what constitutes abuse and inefficiency can be difficult.

It's an achievable task for an individual who is spending his own money to determine if the wasted inputs are worth the final product, if he has alternatives. This is (one reason) why monopolies are bad. If the facts are not in question, rigorous application of the NAP will tell you who was the abuser and who the abusee. You reject property rights, markets, and the NAP so of course you find it "difficult" to calculate these things but it would be more accurate to say "impossible."

No it's because I don't trust you to have any idea what the law ought to be for you or anyone else.

you dont even know what my position in the hierarchy is. Matter of fact, who do you trust to determine the law?

Also did you read the opinions for these cases you recommended?

not recently. Why, is something amiss?

Malachi appears to be a libertarian.  I can't be exactly sure what kind of legal system he'd like but if it's anything like I've read about in my studies of libertarianism it sounds like an absolute nightmare.

if I created a system of justice, and it were a nightmare, then at least I could say I met the bar.

Malachi:

 please define "social order."

I can't, it's a consequence of all people acting.  Not just those who participate cooperatively.  That's why I think you're using wishful thinking when you think it's all based on cooperative behavior.  It's not.  It's based on the sum of human action not all of which is cooperative.  The question is: how do we deal with the uncooperative side?

The paradoxical answer the state embodies is that to deal with the uncooperative side it must itself become uncooperative to some degree.  That is to say that to uphold the law some people must exist with the power to break the law.  This was the same problem that bothered the Founders.  Who watches the watchmen?

While I do think in certain ways the market could get rid of this problem, I think in its place it would leave something worse: a place where every consumer got to make their own choices about everything, no matter how stupid they may be.  That to me is a greater nightmare than the watchmen problem.  I take these two concerns and balance them and find I prefer a state over a hypothesized purely free society.

Malachi:

 You think it is potentially fine to attempt to rectify this temporal disorder with a state-sponsored violation of social order, as if there werent enough victims already. But you withhold ultimate judgment because your place in the hierarchy doesnt bestow upon you the power to make a real judgment as to whether anyone's rights were actually violated.

That's correct, it's not my call.  But I think it may have been worth it.  Still need to see how things played out.

Malachi:

 When you tell me you dont care about using these stolen monies to produce justice efficiently, you tell me you dont care how many inputs it takes to make a product. And when you tell me the propsect of police abuse isnt troublesome to you, then you tell me you dont even care if you get one product. So I'm wondering if you even believe that human behavior is goal-directed. Do you?

Ofcourse it's goal directed.  What else could it be?  I just don't get mad if we don't reach goals the most "efficient way conceivable" or if we don't necessarily get the exact product we might've wanted.  I recognize that those problems are costs of the state.  But what are the costs of the market?

Malachi:

 $0 (FL). So are you a governor? That might explain why wasting tax dollars and police abusing the citizenry is kind of a "meh" issue for you compared to...whatever it is you mean by "social order."

So you're mad about the established order even though you get to use the services it provides despite the fact that you've paid nothing into it?  I paid more than that last year and I'm not mad.

Malachi:

 It's an achievable task for an individual who is spending his own money to determine if the wasted inputs are worth the final product, if he has alternatives. This is (one reason) why monopolies are bad. If the facts are not in question, rigorous application of the NAP will tell you who was the abuser and who the abusee.

So in that sense, the free society would make this process easier.  Does that make a free society preferable?  I don't think so.  Everything I've read about them sounds bad.

Malachi:

 You reject property rights, markets, and the NAP so of course you find it "difficult" to calculate these things but it would be more accurate to say "impossible."

I reject property rights and the NAP because I cannot find any good reason to believe in them.

Markets are scientifically understandable.  I don't have to believe in them for them to work.

Libertarians think they can derive ought from is by looking at market behavior and figuring that what works must be also be right.  It's a naturalistic fallacy.  Because people can cooperate that must mean that they ought to cooperate.  Because people can recognize their bodies as their own that means that their bodies ought to be their own.  Because people have evolved to value reciprocity, therefore reciprocity is good. It's illogical.

Malachi:

 you dont even know what my position in the hierarchy is. Matter of fact, who do you trust to determine the law?

I don't really care what you station is.  I believe that the law, as many of you have pointed out, is an emergent phenomena of codified social norms.  However, the common law system is built upon thousands of years of human interaction.  The statutory law system is different.  It represents the prevailing social norms of any given place and time.  The law, in this sense, is an evolving human code, pitting past norms against present norms to decide which ones, for whatever period of time, will be codified.  You might think that a free society would be progress, but I think it would be a regression to the foundational system of our current system.  You'd be going backwards and you'd be relying on the masses to determine all over again what ought and ought not to be allowed.  That does not sound appealing at all.  I'm surprised anyone finds it appealing tbh.

Malachi:

 not recently. Why, is something amiss?

I'm just surprised that you picked these two because while the facts of the cases present a picture of an abrogation of duty, the decisions themselves are an exercise in judicial restraint.  If you'll look at the grounds on which the petitioner's claims were based and think about the logical implications of them, I would imagine a libertarian would actually agree with the rulings.

I personally don't agree with the rulings but I understand that to give people entitlements such as these under considerations of  fourteenth amendment due process would mean that not only is the state obligated to protect you from it but also to protect us from each other in a way the amendment may have never been intended to do.  It would necessarily give the state more power in tearing families apart.  Particularly with respect to Deshaney v Winnebago.  The issue presented in this case was whether or not the state had an obligation to protect the boy from his father.  I think the state did but you must understand that in doing so, it would mean that the state would be incentivized to take children away from their parents the minute they suspected abuse.  The case of Castle Rock v Gonzales is different but I'll talk more about that when I get home later tonight.

So you're mad about the established order even though you get to use the services it provides despite the fact that you've paid nothing into it?  I paid more than that last year and I'm not mad.

are you trolling me, or are you staggeringly ignorant about the means by which government is funded? Who says I paid nothing into this system?

 

 

 

Mob bosses are a form of extralegal service.  But the only reason anyone would go to them would be if they thought their particular issue couldn't be solved legally.  Presumably because the dispute in question is over something that's illegal.

This and the rest  are really really missing the point of anything I was trying to say.  Mobs by definiton are criminal etc - I am just saying when using state statistics to look at how well the state handles state justice, who cares?  There is no special reason to care about it when we speak of a theory of justice "as such".

 Any form of arbiration at any time could be a form of justice.  These things happen in split seconds at weird times, and new and unique conflicts and problems arrive and are resolved that are beyond our understanding.  The world is a kaleidoscope

 

doesn't mean that the state's legal framework doesn't provide a backbone to social cooperation within our social order

I already said it does, nobody can argue that.  The state defines and enforces what it can and can not do, what it has a monoply of power on and how we obide by it.  This is obviously going to drastically change expectations and actions in areas of high demand.  That's what I meant by "expectations".  

Just because it can do such a thing though doesn't mean much - public health care, wealth distribution, etc can all be handled by a state - so could anything else big or small for that matter.  There is nothing special about justice when we look at the logic of human action or sociability.

Malachi:

 are you trolling me, or are you staggeringly ignorant about the means by which government is funded? Who says I paid nothing into this system?

How much did you pay in taxes in total including federal, state and local taxes?

Nope, you already asked and I answered. You have to answer my question before you get to ask me another question.