General

Re: Can Volunteers Protect Communities?

John James — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 01:19:44 GMT

It spends the whole video essentially showing "money" as nothing more than a medium of exchange...as if a money could come about without having some kind of non-monetary use. The overall video was good enough that I could overlook that, but then it comes right out and literally says money is an "IOU". Game over.

There's much better ways to explain money.

Swing and a miss, Learn Liberty. (Okay, okay. foul ball.)

Re: Can Volunteers Protect Communities?

Wheylous — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 01:09:15 GMT

Hm. I like it.

And why do you find the video a disappointment? The long-term/short-term classical neutrality problem?

Re: Can Volunteers Protect Communities?

John James — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:21:15 GMT

I know where you're coming from, and trust me, I'm probably one of the biggest sticklers when it comes to otherwise good videos not making the cut. (Here's the latest disappointment.)

But my point is there is enough countering the notion that volunteers "aren't as good" as salary cops in the video itself. For one thing, if they have the exact same equipment, training, and testing, then the only difference between a volunteer and a salary cop is the money...which ceteris peribus would probably mean the volunteer would be a better cop than the guy who's collecting a paycheck.

And one more thing you can throw in someone's face is the fact that more than 70% of fire departments are all-volunteer, and another 17% are mostly-volunteer. These statists love firefighters just as much as cops, and as long as you get em to admit it early enough, they'll allege they're both equally important and dangerous and requiring of skill and knowledge and decision-making, etc. etc. (And in fact, you could easily make the argument that firefighter requirements are more stringent...considering all you have to do is look at the physique of a typical firefighter versus a typical cop.)

Anyway, with the way they argue, it's just as easy to point out most fire departments are already volunteer, and there's no evidence to suggest that simply handing someone a paycheck makes them more qualified (which, again, if they were doing the job for free, it would suggest they'd be more likely to want to be doing a good job).

Re: Can Volunteers Protect Communities?

Wheylous — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:30:07 GMT

I knew you would bring that up. The problem is that anyone who disagrees with us will latch onto that statement "Hurr Durr he said they do some different stuff Durr"

Re: Can Volunteers Protect Communities?

John James — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:26:34 GMT

So what? That's one sentence, and it's immediately damped with the addendum that "they're certainly capable of handling it if they have to..." And they (as in the talking heads...not the makers of the video) spend at least a full minute talking about how they're indistinguishable from the salaried cops...same equipment, same training, same testing, "they're just as qualified and capable, etc."

Re: Can Volunteers Protect Communities?

Wheylous — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:05:26 GMT

I'd use it, but at one point they say something like "we don't use them too much for the really serious stuff"

Can Volunteers Protect Communities?

John James — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:33:47 GMT

A brilliant piece of anecdotal evidence that a state is unnecessary...even for one of the most "state necessary" functions.

My favorite line: "...their violent crime rates actually droped after they lost 25% of their police force in 2007."

(Please visit the site to view this media)