Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts SWAT Teams Claim They're Private Corporations, Immune To Oversight
New submitter thermowax sends a report on how Massachusetts SWAT teams are dodging open records requests by claiming to be corporations. From the article:
As it turns out, a number of SWAT teams in the Bay State are operated by what are called law enforcement councils, or LECs. These LECs are funded by several police agencies in a given geographic area and overseen by an executive board, which is usually made up of police chiefs from member police departments. ... Some of these LECs have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it's here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they're private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they're immune from open records requests. Let's be clear. These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure and kill. They operate SWAT teams, which conduct raids on private residences. And yet they say that because they've incorporated, they're immune to Massachusetts open records laws. The state's residents aren't permitted to know how often the SWAT teams are used, what they're used for, what sort of training they get or who they're primarily used against.
Citizen, you will be sent to a re-education camp. Cease resisting and comply with the security officer's request.
So, if they're not government entities, then they're private entities, and as such not entitled to qualified immunity for their actions, right? So if they damage a house or hurt an individual, they're on the hook for damages (and criminal actions), and can't claim immunity from the courts...
in history class in a thousand years. That one by one, "private" corporations installed themselves, cancer-like, into the public money stream while at the same time claiming to be "private".
While the population 3D printed coffee cups and masturbated to Mars fantasies.
If that's how they want to play it, the solution is simple. No taxpayer funding.
Wasn't "No taxation without representation" coined in (what became) the Commonwealth?
Charge 'em with breaking and entering, assault and battery, and conspiracy to do those things. Guys, are you sure you're not with the government?
Police abusing the law to escape accountability. If anyone didn't see that coming I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.
Not a libertarian, but to play devil's advocate for a moment: the problem is that they're a state-appointed-and-run agency, so this isn't properly privatised. You have the bad half of privatisation, but not the good half. You could argue that if the system was actually an open market with private security firms competing for the government's business then you'd have open-ness.
Now as far as I'm concerned, history has proven that it'd never actually work out that way, but there you go.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Libertarians should love this
What's your next guess, asshole?
Libertarians are against the initiation of violence, whether the perps are government thugs or quasi-private organizations like this. You can shove your smug little digs right back up the hole it came from.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
They want the monetary and security advantages of being paid with taxpayer money without having to comply with the legal requirements of a taxpayer funded government organization. If they are allowed to get away with that, would anybody here like to guess here where it will go next?
FBI raid and arrest everyone in the SWAT team, put them in prison and charge them with Racketeering. Do it very public, invite the media and make these scumbags a lesson to cops across the country that they work FOR the citizens and must act as "public servants" and not a street gang.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Ahem.....
"I've got a bad feeling about this"....
Thank you...
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Not really, given that this is still being paid for by taxpayers. Actual libertarians wouldn't support this because the reality is that this is a very large government entity using bureaucracy to avoid accountability.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
That sounds pretty violent.
Mostly random stuff.
You are joking, but I can see something like 'number of arrests per dollar spent' becoming a way to compare and select LEC.
that will create a private army paid for by the rich, right here on US soil. The simple solution is, no open records = no policing powers.
What's wrong with that? Libertarians should love this - government slashed to bare minimum (or below) and everything in private hands. And as we know, *everything* is better when privately operated. Next step should be deregulating LEC market to enable true competition.
Like Martin Niemöller pointed out, nobody cares about things like this until they are being targeted themselves. I don't expect Libertarians to be any different.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Government officials and organizations have immunity from lawsuits for the most part, however private corporations are not. I'm sure there are any number of potential lawsuits that could be brought against them. I'd say it would be fun to watch them try to dance around the subject but it's not, really. It's sickening.
What's wrong with that comment? Scarecrows should love this - a huge straw man deliberately elevated to the level of (attempted) serious discussion. Everything is better with logical fallacies. Next step should be ad hominem and argument from emotion to eliminate true discussion.
I think a better thing to pull on would be the private police forces of the 'robber baron' era of US history where police forces were provided for by the local companies and did not exactly have the workers (or 3rd parties in the region) interest in mind.
Except they aren't in private hands — they are paid for by the tax-payers.
And, BTW, most Libertarians do agree, that law-enforcement is the government's function — the sole one, perhaps. Oh, it may be provided by private companies, but those must be hired by and operate on the authority of the local governments.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Now they're private police forces and not subject to oversight?
Fine, then they're not law enforcement officers, and have far fewer room to operate legally, and any deaths and the like means they go to jail, right?
Exactly. If you're private corporations, you're not cops, you're vigilantes and operating outside of the law. If you're officers of the law, you're subject to oversight.
And, once again, the 'police' have no interest in upholding the law, just covering their own asses.
If this doesn't get tossed out by a court or the law makers, this is a terrible precedent. They're asking for the right to do anything they want without oversight or responsibility.
And it sounds like they've got a long history of doing things which they'd prefer to keep hidden from oversight -- like accidentally killing people.
In the immortal words of NWA ... Fuck tha police.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
people with guns and flashbang grenades.
I think most libertarians would say there is nothing wrong with government outsourcing law enforcement; but there is something wrong with doing so as a way to skirt legal requirements.
In this example the PEOPLE have enacted records requirements for state and local law enforcement. If the various municipalities want to outsource that is fine but whoever they hire needs to be subject to the same legal requirements. If they are working for the 'state' they are state actors and should be expected to follow the same rules the state is subject; that should be in their contract and if they don't want to agree to those terms then they can't bid on the job. Just like if I want my house painted, anyone is welcome to bid on the job but if you won't make it the color I want than I can't hire you. If the LEC can't follow the records rules for all activities related to their working for law enforcement they can't be hired or that is how it should work.
As a libertarian though my main issue is really with the state having to much power in the first place. Private security forces are just fine, but they should work for private groups. Your home owners association should be hiring security to keep your neighborhood safe for example, they naturally don't get the legal protection and police powers a 'state' agency would have, which is a powerful and important check on them and you.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
This is basically the plot of Continuum [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_(TV_series)], which is currently in its third season.
I know this is a tangent, but there is a pretty good intersection of interests here on Slashdot between science-fiction and rights of the people versus government. The show makes it interesting because the viewer is meant to basically hate both sides, plus it has time-travel.
*shrug*
It's that simple. If they are not properly commissioned law enforcement officers then they are impersonating police and it is perfectly okay to answer deadly force with deadly force especially when they break into your home.
The lack of compeitition... that problems on the government's side for allowing it. Actually, the majority of the fault is with the local government for allowing this. From what I've read, the police are legally right. If the state doesn't like it, they should change they're own laws, not fault a company for abiding by them. Now, that being said... they should definetly change the laws/situation... because police with no oversight is a very bad idea.
This is simply a contracting issue. The state can put disclosure and transparency requirements in the contract, the private company can agree or not get the contract. Failure to properly contract is the problem.
Well, no, libertarians in the current erra are against 3rd party public oversight of initiated violence.
It never stops entertaining me when someone who's not a member of a group feels compelled to explain to people who are members of the group how the aforementioned group thinks.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Well, he never said that he was a Libertarian.
Massachusetts has pretty strict gun laws. If this is a private corporation, well, I don't think its members should be having fully automatic weapons with 30 round mags.
Mind you, I don't think ANY police should have weapons that the general public can't, but that's a separate issue.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
If they are "private corporations", then they are subject to discovery and private lawsuits, recovery of damages, and all that good stuff. That's assuming, of course, that private corporations can even do this stuff.
(Also remember that this blatant abuse of power comes from the heart of American liberalism, Massachusetts.)
If they are not law enforcement, they are a private company that is assaulting and kidnapping citizens.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
No, this is a government entity which has decided it isn't a government entity, but still has the right to operate as if it were.
Sorry, but a government entity doesn't get to declare independence from the part that gives is legitimacy.
If these guys are a corporation, they can pay their own salaries, and operate under the sames rules as private security firms. Which means they're no longer police officers.
If they want to be law enforcement, well, that means they aren't private corporations, and they are subject to oversight.
Especially when they have a history of playing fast and loose with the law, 'using fictional informants to obtain warrants ', and other shady activities.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Good luck with that. Either they are performing raids under the direction of the government, in which case they are acting in their capacity as government police officers, or they are breaking and entering in their capacity as corporate employees. As a criminal, I would welcome this change as these raids will become giant lawsuits.
Such a coincidence, just today I read this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... "10 Facts About The SWATification Of America That Everyone Should Know" "The number of SWAT team raids in the United States every year is now more than 25 times higher than it was back in 1980."
The only way to control violence is with violence. So being against it doesn't make any sense.
If you read it carefully jcr was actually suggesting the OP should harm himself rather than rely on others to attack him.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I work for local government (in a different state). A number of cities and counties around the state have banded together to manage custom software projects, etc, using a legal device known as a "Joint Powers Agreement".
The JPA creates a legal entity, much the same way that a contract creates a trust. This entity is essentially a delegation of authority from the various local government entities that constitute it, so it has some strange properties. For example, it has bank accounts, employs staff, rents an office, etc, but does not file tax returns.
It also, as far as our lawyers can tell, is exempt from all data practices laws. This isn't the end run you might seem to think. If a data request comes in to the entity, the staff there tells them to contact the relevant member entity. The requestor can then ask me (for example), and I am obligated to collect the data from my systems, and from the organization.
Basically, the legal reasoning is that the entity doesn't own anything, it merely possesses things on the behalf of the member entities. This is also why it doesn't file tax returns.
I don't know the legal situation in Massachusetts, but these are principles that derive from western jurisprudence in general, rather than from the laws of my state, so I suspect it is pretty similar. No idea where the 501(c)(3) thing comes in. I suspect that is more about being able to accept donations than anything else.
Personally, I think the citizens of that state should ask their legislature to pass a law to require such entities to respond to information requests, if that entity is involved in police operations. It is in the public interest to be able to request data from a consolidated entity of this nature, rather than having to deal with each individual member entity.
See that "Preview" button?
It is about as entertaining when a member of a group feels compelled to explain how other members of the group think.
What's wrong with that? Libertarians should love this - government slashed to bare minimum (or below) and everything in private hands. And as we know, *everything* is better when privately operated. Next step should be deregulating LEC market to enable true competition.
You have absolutely no idea what libertarianism is about. It's about LIBERTY from both government and corporate interests... as well as fellow citizens. Shedding one master for another is stupid.
And it can't be long before someone invokes Godwin's law... WWHD?
It never stops entertaining me when someone who's not a member of a group feels compelled to explain to people who are members of the group how the aforementioned group thinks.
Ah, I see, you're one of them Scientologists.
Ezekiel 23:20
Let them claim that but then you revoke all those badges and let the company give them "Security" shields. If they work for a private corporation they are private security NOT LEO.
Yes, that's one of the things I'd assume a private firm would have to offer to get the contract in a free market. Although obviously in this case I suppose they could've just mandated that.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Yeah, it bugs me when people think libertarians love corporations. Libertarians love freedom. Fuck the goverment, and fuck corporations too.
So you can shoot them in your house?? and they can't change you with anything for doing that??
Some needs to take that part all the way though the court system.
Do you want ED-209? Because that's how you get YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS TO COMPLY
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
As much as it pains me I see two sides of this issue: 1) Anyone who is a public employee is subject to oversight in my humble opinion. Especially folks that wear badges, carry weapons and have arrest powers. It effects several of the rights of US citizens. 2) I understand the need for operational security, especially where organized crime (drug cartels, for example) are involved. If SWAT is used, for instance, in taking down a major drug dealers "safe house" and the probable cause they had was the result of undercover police then I'd say that is an example of records that need to be sealed for the safety of the undercover police involved. Undercover cops hang their skins over the line enough just doing what they do. There needs to be a fair balance between allowing law enforcement to do their jobs and the public "right to know." Some secrets I don't believe should be public knowledge if the safety of the lives acting on good faith are involved. Remember: law enforcement is done by human beings. I shudder to think of a "Robocop" scenario playing out in this country.
Groups don't exist, only individuals do! You're not worthy of being part of the libertarian group.
It's become a rather common excuse. These days it is typically mixed up with corporate claims of privacy. Essentially corporate secrecy is used as a way if short circuiting the rule of law. That's how the police departments that use Stingray cell phone interception technology to shred constitutional protections avoid admitting what they are doing: they have a confidentiality clause with the company who makes the device. Same thing with fracking chemicals: they can pump any toxic crap that they want to into the ground because it's a business secret.
So where were all the right wingers when this was going down during the Bush era? You know, the ones who are now claiming that Obama is destroying the constitution? Massive amnesia and/or massive hypocrisy?
(Personally I am furious with Obama because he has continued the blatantly unconstitutional policies of the Bush years, but at least I am not lying through my teeth and supporting one executive while screeching like a stuck pig when a democrat does the same kind of crap.)
Why is Snark Required?
Be mindful of how you use "libertarian". Most libertarians believe in a small government that executes a limited number of duties, including police, courts, and military, and thus your statement is directed towards the wrong group. The group you're looking for is "anarchists".
:)
Be mindful of how you use "privatize". Trading an unaccountable, public monopoly that feeds off the taxpayers for an unaccountable, private monopoly that feeds off the taxpayers is not true privatization.
As an anarchist myself, this is obviously not what we mean when we say we want to privatize police. Once the police are (a) voluntarily funded and (b) no longer given a government-backed monopoly on security services, then you can declare an anarchist nirvana.
Not a libertarian, but to play devil's advocate for a moment: the problem is that they're a state-appointed-and-run agency, so this isn't properly privatised. You have the bad half of privatisation, but not the good half. You could argue that if the system was actually an open market with private security firms competing for the government's business then you'd have open-ness.
Now as far as I'm concerned, history has proven that it'd never actually work out that way, but there you go.
I am a Libertarian and your devils advocate argument is dead on. Good job :-)
Your concern about "history" is a valid one. But you need to look at a validly unregulated market to compare. We rarely, if ever, have those.
Any legal/judicial experts care to weigh in on whether this argument has a snowball's chance of being accepted by any court?
The trouble is this is more or less a shell company created by these governments to place them outside the law and that should not work. You can't just create an extra legal entity to shield yourself for having to follow the legal regulations that apply to you.
We just had a SCOTUS ruling the other day that said you can't hire a proxy gun buyer to acquire weapons for you (say because you can't pass the background check) and then convey them to you in a private sale. They court basically held that when someone fills out the form and says they are purchasing a gun for their own use than that must be their intent at the time they sign the form.
Sure in that case it does not do much someone can still stand on the sidewalk outside the gun dealer and offer to by a weapon someone just purchased from them right then and there, and that was the dissents argument, but its really not the point.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
But they have not slashed anything. Everything is the same, except that SWAT is trying to use a loophole to avoid accountability and oversight.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I haven't yet looked for it, but I suspect the law that authorizes the creation of the LECs in the first place would implicitly preclude them from filing for non-profit status in the first place, so the LECs have committed fraud by doing so, and should be prosecuted in Federal court accordingly.
I would have thought that lack of crime was the goal of any law enforcement, not number of arrests. Although number of arrests is certainly an easier number to work out.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
an all-chicken production of Fiddler on the Roof (of the coop)?
As a libertarian though my main issue is really with the state having to much power in the first place. Private security forces are just fine, but they should work for private groups. Your home owners association should be hiring security to keep your neighborhood safe for example, they naturally don't get the legal protection and police powers a 'state' agency would have, which is a powerful and important check on them and you.
Wow. As if the poor parts of town weren't crime-ridden enough already, you want them to be practically un-policed because they can't afford it? I'd much prefer my money go into a generalized geographical pool so I don't have to be escorted by a private bodyguard whenever I leave my safe little bubble of a neighborhood.
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
But the logical extreme of modern-day Libertarianism is Anarchism. We've pretty much tried every "-ism" on the books, both political and economic "-isms", and it's pretty clear from history that any "-ism", taken to its logical extreme, is a pretty bad thing that eventually collapses under its own weight and inevitable human greed and corruption. The best systems in place so far, are combinations that balance individual liberties with societies needs.
If only "common" sense was actually that common...
None of the people quoted in the article seem to have any idea what they are saying. The most disturbing thing is that the ACLU is whining about this as if this was a legitimate argument. It is not.
Here are a few of the most poignant reasons why this argument fails:
First and foremost 501(c)(3) is an IRS regulation that means a corporation does not have to pay income tax. 501(c)(3) is NOT a method by which a corporation maybe formed.
Second, states not the federal government create the rules for creating a corporation.
Third, there are many different types of corporations, one of those types is a municipal corporation. Just because you have something called a corporation does not mean it is private. Municipal corporations are subject to FOIA
Fourth, corporations can register with the IRS as 501(c)(3) non-profits, but to use it as a tool to hide information would be incredibly stupid because 501(c)(3) status means you must release more information about your internal workings than a normal private corporation would need to disclose.
Either the ACLU is whining because they don't have the sharpest knife in the drawer dealing with these FOIA requests, or this is a calculated move to drum up donations.
It's up to the voters whether they want to keep reelecting politicians who permit this if the state's attorney general doesn't sue.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
So what I'd like to know is under what category of 501(c)(3) organization LECs claim to be operating, and for what exempt purpose?
Presumably, they are claiming to be a cooperative association, but such organizations are typically local chambers of commerce and the like, i.e. leagues of private individuals and organizations, not public entities such as local PDs.
Likewise, such an organization must have an exempt purpose: "charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals." (emphasis mine). Since these organizations are clearly not performing testing, they do not fall under the public safety exemption, leaving only the charitable option. While the IRS has been quite liberal in what it defines as a charitable purpose, they have never recognized the co-option and shielding from oversight of traditionally governmental functions as such a purpose.
With this arrangement suddenly bursting into public view, I'd be unsurprised to see the IRS yank these organizations' exemptions pretty quickly. Hopefully, the resulting outcry from the public when they learn that their local tax money is being wasted to pay federal taxes on these private organization's activities (which would be otherwise exempt if conducted by the gov't itself) will lead to a quick demise for this tactic.
Should be fired.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Is there some reason that you cannot spell liberal correctly?
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
The Massachusetts Senate is 90% Democrats, the House is 80% Democrats, and the governor is a Democrat as well. How the hell can you blame libertarians for this? The only people responsible for what is happening in Massachusetts are Democrats and progressives. What you are seeing in Massachusetts is progressivism and American "liberalism" in action.
But you are correct that close ties between industry and government you see in Massachusetts (and increasingly elsewhere) are fascist in nature; private businesses implementing government policy and being rewarded for it is at the core of fascism. It's the "solution" people come up with when they don't like capitalism but are afraid of socialism. And history shows us it's a bad solution that will spin out of control.
Libertarians want to reduce state interference in private affairs, including private businesses. The kind of crony-capitalism and delegation of state power to private businesses ("privatization", government "outsourcing") you increasingly see in the US, advocated by Democrats and Republicans alike, represents core abuses of government power that libertarians oppose. It has nothing to do with free markets or capitalism, it just misuses the language of free markets and capitalism.
Take off your political blinders. Whether you like libertarianism or not, libertarians are not a significant political force in the US. Anything that happens in Massachusetts is the Democrats fault, and what happens in the rest of the country is a joint project of Democrats and Republicans.
Nah, legally it's not that bad for them. They'll claim they got a government contract, and all is good. If the court agrees with that the the logical conclusion is to sue the state for failure to bid the contract and a whole bunch of government contracting laws, and you'll also end up with that SWAT isn't government, so there are probably legal issues and conflict of interest type things letting them handle a police type job.
In short either they are government, and open to all of this, or they are private and fucked up the contract. Either case they can get sued.
Does anyone remember the days when you might expect one of the comments here to provide an analysis of MA laws and find the line that makes their "corporations are exempt" argument void?
I know, right, and it was like: hey what are all you new people here doing with these 4-digit user IDs?
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
It is about as entertaining when a member of a group feels compelled to explain how other members of the group think.
Probably still more accurate than information you would get from a person who obviously hates said group.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Almost right, but you got your ideologies mixed up a little.
If they voluntarily pool their resources to protect themselves, that is libertarianism.
If they are prevented from pooling their resources and government forces them to pay for the protection through an unaccountable private corporation, that is progressivism.
As this case illustrates.
This is simply a contracting issue. The state can put disclosure and transparency requirements in the contract, the private company can agree or not get the contract.
If the open records law is meant to have any teeth it should be mandatory that there are disclosure requirements in the contract. And any agency, private or otherwise: has no authority to act with government powers, without compliance with the law, regardless of what kind of legal structure they use to organize their organization.
If they're not exceptionally careful there could be a case where the corporate veil is pierced and result in personal liability applied to the corporate officers. That would be far more chilling to this kind of bogus operation than merely ruling that they cannot hide behind corporate law to shield them from public transparency requirements.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
First, libertarians generally consider common military defense a proper function of government, so that's nonsense.
But your second error is that you're confusing "socializing" (government-mandated participation) with a voluntary "commune" (participation is individual choice).
Because corporations bidding over who gets to kick in my door and beat my ass is just what `murica needs.
Here is another one who agrees with him 100%. In fact it is the very point of Libertarianism is that an individual or group of individuals has the right to do what it wants as long as that does not prevent others from exercising their rights and no one is compelled to join them or remain with them if they do decide to join.
If the armed invaders breaking down your door aren't from the government, you aren't a cop killer for shooting them.
Metal Gear Solid was not a blueprint you assholes!
This is simply a contracting issue. The state can put disclosure and transparency requirements in the contract, the private company can agree or not get the contract.
Whether or not they put it in a contract is irrelevant. A contract is void if it contradicts the law and the argument they are making pretty clearly contradicts the law in all likelihood. The argument this company is making is that they are not subject to rule of law, specifically the oversight that applies to law officers and their activities. Essentially they are arguing that the law doesn't apply to them because the check is from a private company even though the activities are unambiguously on the behalf of the government.
Basically if their argument is correct then they are private citizens engaging in vigilante activities and they should be in jail. If their argument is wrong then they are in violation a host of other laws and they should be in jail. Either way it has nothing to do with contract law.
Actually, this may not be so bad. If they're not government agencies, then they're not immune to lawsuits and when they bust in the wrong house, that person can sue the hell out of them, right?
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Is there any reason why you couldn't have explained calmly to OP why his assumption was incorrect, and you had to go off the deep end for no reason?
What's with this strange outburst that is normally uncharacteristic of you -- Marijuana-induced psychosis at work?
In short either they are government, and open to all of this, or they are private and fucked up the contract. Either case they can get sued.
Doesn't matter what the contract says. If they are acting on behalf of the government then they ARE the government and should be subject to the same rules and scrutiny. What the contract says is irrelevant if it contradicts the relevant laws because then the contract is void.
Either they are vigilantes or they are in violation of disclosure regulations. In both cases they should be in legal hot water.
In its purest ideological form, Libertarianism is about promoting Liberty and the limitation of the use of force by the government for police and common defense not the privatization of the use of force. "Privatizing" by merely contracting with corporations instead of individuals to act as police or government agents has nothing to do at all with libertarianism. Privatizing in this sense is just a form of contract with a group of individuals instead of individuals directly. Similarly to contracting with a labor union that represents public employees.
In this sense "privatizing" in general has nothing to do with libertarianism if it means that government is still paying with taxpayer money which is collected by the use of force. Police and Military are fundamentally the only legitimate use of government's taxing authority and even then taxes should be considered a necessary evil, but only necessary if the government can't collect sufficient money with a voluntary system.
In this case I think an important line would have been crossed if the SWAT team direction, oversight and management is coming from a private corporation. To abdicate the police powers of the government to a private corporation would be very much anti-libertarian. Very anti-libertarian. And regardless of ideology I hope people will recognize it as a bad idea that should be reconsidered.
I think liberty is a worthwhile ideal to work towards, but first you have to understand what it means.
Dystopian sci-fi is full of unaccountable private security forces armed with the best weapons available, but those forces were always limited to some piece of private property...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Yes, that's one of the things I'd assume a private firm would have to offer to get the contract in a free market. Although obviously in this case I suppose they could've just mandated that.
No-bid contracts are hardly new there.
Blackwater, anyone?
would the Aero case be useful here? they tried to use a loophole to broadcast TV and the SC struck it down eventhough they followed the letter of the law.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
a small government that executes a limited number of duties, including police, courts, and military
Don't forget law making. You can't have a court or police force without rules. And taxes to pay them.
You could argue that if the system was actually an open market with private security firms competing for the government's business then you'd have open-ness.
Maye you could, but in all conscience, I could not.
An open market doesn't confer superior morality. In fact, it doesn't even confer superior product or service.
The Invisible Hand selects for profitability, and if you can be profitable enough while selling people toxic pet food or children's toys laced with heavy metals, you can wipe your feet on competitors who provide better products.
Open bidding has nothing at all to do with open operation, in any event. You can have limited bids for an operation that works "in the sunshine" or open bids for an operation that works with Nixonian paranoia.
I do agree that the logical end of libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism. That's the old joke:
Q: What the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
A: About six months!
The rest of your post amount to "Your views are extreme, therefore they are incorrect", which is simply an appeal to moderation, so I'm not certain exactly what it is I'm supposed to respond with.
"Nuh uh"?
If they voluntarily pool their resources to protect themselves, that is libertarianism.
Sounds like "maffia" to me.
If the voluntary pool becomes large enough, we call it "government".
Libertarianism is one of those things that only works in small groups (and then only helps that small group), but fails on a nation-wide scale.
Kinda like how marxism works in small communes but turns into communism when applied on a nation-wide scale.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
We already have private prisons. Somehow I don't see employees getting charged with kidnapping, illegal detainment, assault, battery, etc.
Is there some reason that you cannot spell liberal correctly?
I can't speak for that poster but I can guess why he spelled it that way. "Liberal" used to mean something more like "libertarian" before its meaning was perverted and distorted from "liberal exercise of civil rights" to mean "liberal imposition of government power". Sometimes the term "Classical Liberal" is used in an attempt to reverse this deliberate and underhanded confusion.
Even "libertarian" itself has been deliberately distorted from "advocates a small government limited to a) public works, b) national defense, and c) law enforcement and those things only, imposing only those restrictions which are truly necessary for a healthy society" to its new co-opted meaning of "anarcho-capitalist who wants even police to be private security that not all can afford". The intent there is obvious: change it from something hard to really argue against to something easily demonized that most people will learn to dismiss without thought or examination.
You'll find that the more an ideal threatens the use and expansion of power, the more propaganda is applied to change the meaning of words until they finally represent the very opposite of what they once stood for. It's the real-life equivalent of George Orwell's Newspeak. The "languages evolve so absolutely every change is totally legitimate and should never be resisted!" crowd are more or less Satan's little helpers here. Like most of Satan's little helpers, they think they're doing a good thing and would be horrified to see the money changing hands, the intentional authors of propaganda (called "PR"), and the concept of "manufactured consent" that established itself in this nation during the days of Woodrow Wilson.
So anyway, I read that to mean "ill-liberal" as in "not liberal" and certainly not "Classical Liberal" like what that word once meant.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
The problem with suing them is that you can only target the corp's assets. Structuring it in such a way that the 'company' doesn't actually have any is pretty standard.
I'm thinking that the BATFE needs to come inspect them to make sure they're in full compliance with the NFA. The regulations are completely different between being a government agency like a police department and a commercial company like a 501(c)(3). I'm also willing to bet that they use government letterhead to purchase restricted stuff.
BATFE: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
NFA: National Firearms Act. Federal law regul
I don't read AC A human right
No, they are not arguing that they are not subject to the rule of law. They are arguing that certain laws don't apply as written, and they have a case. Contract requirements can compel the vendor to pretty much to anything they are willing to sign up for. There is no law that limits what they can agree to with regards to disclosure.
If they are a private security firm contracting with local law enforcement then wouldn't local law enforcement still be required to comply with open records requests concerning that contract and services provided? I contracted that out, shouldn't alleviate the burden of records keeping or requests.
Can I start a SWAT team? Do will the law see as lenient on my operations as on the current SWAT team.
If not then it's not just a contracting issue.
It's more than anti-libertarians should love this, because what it shows is that we don't even have to open up the market in the ways that libertarians are asking for in order for corporations to become the jackbooted foot stomping on your head forever. It illustrates in fact the principle that corporations ought to be if not in fact outlawed altogether (co-ops of people, and co-ops of co-ops can fulfill all the same functions) then severely limited in scope as to what they are permitted to do.
Corporate charters are supposed to be in the public interest, and they used to be for a limited time. All the other problems aside, let's bring those ideas back. No more corporations whose sole purpose is to permit people to dodge liability for their actions, and no more corporations living eternally and accruing power to themselves endlessly. Let people own things themselves, and be responsible for them, and let no one own more than that for which they can be responsible. That'll teach 'em.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Libertarian? Mass is a Liberal utopia, they were even the template for Obamacare. It's one of the most blue states in the country. This is what UNCHECKED Democrat rule results in.
It's ironic for you to cite Martin Niemöller in this context. Niemöller was initially a supporter of the Nazi regime, anti-Semitic, anti-liberal, and anti-democratic. His statement is truthful: he only started opposing the Nazis when they started making his life difficult, and he really only broke with Nazi ideology after having been imprisoned for years. But his apology and subsequent pacifism themselves were opportunism, and he just moved on from supporting one form of totalitarianism to another one.
In fact, it's libertarians (classical liberals) that are warning you of the dangers of what's happening in Massachusetts and the rise of paramilitary-style police, and obviously getting quite a bit of abuse for it from the political establishment.
So the only reason why democracy/republic works is that it does not end with -ism?
That's an interesting thought. You can still sue a governmental agency but as far as I know there's a wholly different set of protections and limitations when it comes to suing cops vs. private corporations.
I'd also question the legality of them acting as government agents (i.e. cops who arrest/detail/etc.) if they're a private corporation. Last I heard private security does NOT have the same powers as police. Not even close.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
...in Massachusetts. Seriously, no joke. After the marathon bombings there was an unending outpouring of adulation for the "first respondahs." You'd think they had, at enormous losses, turned back the Taliban from invading Cambridge and raping the childrens. Not, in actuality, shut down the entire city while they raced around with giant hardons in a largely bungled effort to locate a bleeding, unarmed boy hiding in someone's boat in their back yard (whom the homeowner found and frankly should have clubbed to death on the spot). In the process of arresting this unarmed miscreant they unleashed a barrage of fire on the boat very nearly killing the kid in the process.
.
Meanwhile folks are still running around with their "Boston Strong" shirts on in one of the lamest displays of self-congratulatory faux heroism that I've ever seen
The cops and firefighters are milking it with giant billboards touting some BS about being "on the home team", trying to get people to donate to some police fund. It's pathetic.
This 501(c)3 nonsense is just further evidence of their warped perspective of what it is "to protect and serve."
And, BTW, most Libertarians do agree, that law-enforcement is the government's function — the sole one, perhaps.
Any libertarian that actually thinks law enforcement is the only job of a government is an idiot. The first job of a government is to create the laws. You cannot enforce laws if you cannot create them. Second, it is impossible to administer any government without some form of revenue and this means taxation. Third, there are numerous market failures that simply cannot be efficiently handled by a market place. Military, certain bits of infrastructure, health care for certain at-risk groups, administration of certain public goods, etc. All of these go well beyond mere law enforcement. Law enforcement is a component of all these items but it's hardly the entirety of it.
Oh, it may be provided by private companies, but those must be hired by and operate on the authority of the local governments.
...and subject to the same laws as it would be if it were not a private company. FTFY. Private companies should never get a free pass when acting in a governmental capacity.
This is stretching the definition of charitable.
Have gnu, will travel.
Yeah, it bugs me when people think libertarians love corporations. Libertarians love freedom. Fuck the goverment, and fuck corporations too.
Yes, I think in its purest form of libertarianism then there is no need for legal corporations at all, because corporations are a government legal invention to aggregate wealth under a legal fiction which the government then has to use force to bring into existence and protect its property and wealth.
No, it also doesn't work. At least not for very long.
Its not just party line issue, but its a great example of how voters are ignorant and keep voting guys in office that engage in cronyism. It's probably worse at the local level than at the State level, at least that is what I have observed. At the local level, the differences between parties is smaller when it comes to what they actually do, which is usually trying to get as much money from the State and Federal Gov as possible, while keeping local prominent businessmen happy.
Pinkertons
Sue? Where is the law that gives them criminal immunity and how is it remotely constitutional?
If they are a private company, they should be subject to the same laws every other company and citizen or person is subject to.
Here is what the Cato institute put out about the rise of SWAT teams:
http://store.cato.org/reports/...
To demonstrate how much of a problem this is, there is even a map of incidents:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap
Reason hasn't had a commentary on it yet, but they have already posted information about the privatized SWAT teams:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/06...
I expect in a day or two, you'll see a Reason article condemning the practice strongly for what it is: crony capitalism, lack of government accountability, and government overreach.
Libertarianism is not anarchism. The maintenance of personal Liberty and a free market relies on a government which uses its force to protect that liberty and freedom. Libertarianism is not about going to an extreme that eliminates government, it is about an minimization of the use of force in society which we can work towards.
There is a huge difference between seeking to minimize government and the use of force in society and anarchists who seek no government. Equating the two does a terrible disservice to a rational debate.
These guys are either agents of the government who are allowed to kick in my door in the middle of the night (if they have a warrant, of course...) and arrest me, or they are a private corporation that has none of those rights, can be ignored by any private citizen, and is responsible for financing their own operations. They cannot be both. If this is allowed to stand, we will be well on our way to a country populated by private armies and security police who can run roughshod over the population with no adverse consequences to them. It's another example of the shocking government overreach that has been taking place in the past decade.
If they are prevented from pooling their resources and government forces them to pay for the protection through an unaccountable private corporation, that is progressivism
You renamed right wing to progressivism? It's the right that is always trying to privatize government to get around accountability and the progressive movement was as much about getting rid of private unaccountable law enforcement (think Pinkertons, larger then the US Army at one point) as much as promoting the common persons rights.
This is the problem with Libertarianism, they're teaming up with the regressives who want to take us back when the serfs knew their place and stayed there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The purest form of libertarianism is anarchy, so a group of people can form a corporation and protect their collective property and wealth using force, as they see fit.
IRS as 501(c)(3) non-profits, but to use it as a tool to hide information would be incredibly stupid because 501(c)(3) status means you must release more information about your internal workings than a normal private corporation would need to disclose.
Not true in a lot of cases. I've been on the board of a 501c3 and I'm also a corporate accountant. Our normal disclosure requirements for the non-profit were fairly minimal and certainly less than most of the companies I've been involved in. You are correct in some cases but not universally so.
No, a "mafia" is when other people blackmail you into giving them you money.
Participation in government programs isn't voluntary, so that statement is false.
Libertarianism isn't an all-encompassing ideology; it's a preference for individual liberties and private solutions.
Yes: you make choices to collaborate with others, and if you make choices that work, you reap the rewards. If you make bad choices, you lose. Why does that bother you?
As opposed to the war on drugs, the war on obesity, the war on poverty, the stimulus, and the national educational efforts? They have all failed to deliver what they promised.
Nothing can ever reliably work "on a nation-wide scale", people and the country are too diverse and too unpredictable for that; that's the point of libertarians. What does work is to give people the freedom to find their own local and individual solutions to their own local and individual problems. That will never make everybody happy or help everybody, but it's the best we can do. You instead want to follow charlatans who promise solutions "on a nation-wide scale" but never actually deliver, and instead just end up being corrupt and destructive.
Participation in government programs isn't voluntary, so that statement is false.
No, it is perfectly possible to voluntary set up a government and agree to follow the laws that it creates.
If they're corporations, they can be sued out of existence. Let the fun begin!
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Actually this is quite interesting from a legal standpoint. Cops are protected from liability for actions as government employees by a legal doctrine known as qualified immunity. Their legal claim that they are in fact a private corporation IMO (INAL) would clear the officers of qualified immunity, if one of these teams was to make a mistake and kill someone the lawyers should be able to breach qualified immunity on the grounds that the officers are not agents of the state using their own rejection of records requests and pursue the personal assets of everyone involved.
I'm not entirely sure than the cops involved thought this through very clearly.
You are unclear on the word "intiation". Better luck next time.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I don't see how what they're saying could be taken as legal.
This is just the police departments doing an end-run around oversight, and coming up with their own re-interpretation of what they're legally allowed to do.
I take this as evidence that law enforcement doesn't give a damn about the law, they care about being able to do anything they want, without oversight, and without having to pay attention to the letter and intent of the law.
And, federal agencies are actively working with them to tell them how to ignore the constitution, use illegally obtained data, or just plain old frame people if they need to.
And, if they're going to act like this, I still say we should require them to wear mandatory recording devices with audio -- that way when they do something questionable, we have a record of it.
Taking the police at their word, or trusting them to enforce the law against their own members is proving to be not working. So the solution is to not take them at their word or trust them.
This is not some banana republic where the cops are above the law. And at no point should private companies be performing SWAT raids on houses.
The people who have made this claim should be fired.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It's ironic for you to cite Martin Niemöller in this context. Niemöller was initially a supporter of the Nazi regime, anti-Semitic, anti-liberal, and anti-democratic. His statement is truthful: he only started opposing the Nazis when they started making his life difficult, and he really only broke with Nazi ideology after having been imprisoned for years. But his apology and subsequent pacifism themselves were opportunism, and he just moved on from supporting one form of totalitarianism to another one.
In fact, it's libertarians (classical liberals) that are warning you of the dangers of what's happening in Massachusetts and the rise of paramilitary-style police, and obviously getting quite a bit of abuse for it from the political establishment.
That was kind of my point, like the OP I was referring to the subset of present-day libertarians that advocate laissez-faire capitalism and who advocate this kind of crap. I cited Niemöller quite deliberately precisely because he cheered along with the Nazis until they got around to targeting him. His lesson was not to make his mistake, get off the band wagon, pour the Kool Aid down the gutter and slash the tyres on the band wagon and choke developments like this at birth. Laissez-faire capitalists will cheer along as these privatised forces morph into corporate armies until they them selves are being targeted.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
There must be something interesting going with the officers pay. If the officers are truly employed by LECs then the LECs must receive taxable income from the state of Massachusetts in order to pay the LECs employees. If that were the case, then the state's method of control over the LECs is by supplying money, and the LECs are (technically) mercenaries. On the other hand, if the officers are somehow being paid directly by the state, then the LECs are nothing more than consultants, and the state can, at will, oust them, and replace either state employees. I would say that the later situation is better for the state, but necessarily as good as just having top to bottom state employees. I'm no expert.
If they're a private corporate then they're not part of the government/police. If that's the case they don't have legal jurisdiction in police matters. Ergo, any time they bust into somebody's place, they're violating the law and not subject to any of the protections offered to a member of legal law enforcement.
No, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
This conversation's going nowhere because we've started with a one-sided news report and all of us agree that this is bullshit. It's chest-high full of straw men in here. So here's an attempt to describe the SWAT teams' legal rationale for this. It comes from reading the news report, reading the Law Enforcement Councils' website, and living in Massachusetts so I know how local government works. Plus a lot of "what would I do if I were evil" speculation.
Massachusetts has very weak county government. Local law enforcement, even in rural areas, happens at the town level. Many small towns have like one cop car and two cops, and can't afford a crime lab, a drug lab, a K-9 unit, and whatnot. The county provides specialist services to all the towns within it, but SWAT teams are not one of these services. It makes total sense that local towns would form a cooperative association (the LECs) to pool their limited SWAT resources.
From what I read on their websites, it looks like SWAT personnel don't work for the LEC. They're ordinary town cops who're assigned duty to work with other town cops through the LEC. That is to say, the LEC has no law enforcement authority, but the individual cops do. The LEC provides equipment storage, networking, and shared training for the town cops. As far as I can tell, legally, the LEC is just a place to park the SWAT van, a seminar room for Powerpoints, and a phone tree.
It's not a private army, I bet they'll say, it's a professional association, just like how your city's dentists all get together at the country club first Tuesday of the month. All the personnel are employed by the towns. All the equipment belongs to the towns. You want the public records for your recent 3 a.m. visit by the battering ram boys? Talk to your town.
Now, clearly, this is all bullshit. But it seems to me to be well-crafted bullshit, created by the SWAT teams' lawyer buddies, and we're not going to make it go away unless we appreciate it for what it is.
Doesn't the Open Records policy still apply to corporations when acting on behalf of, or in lieu of, a public organisation? Honest question as I don't know, but the UK's Freedom of Information Act which borrowed heavily from the US system has such a provision and private organisations are not exempt from requests if working in that capacity.
Private companies shouldn't contract law enforcement directly... maintaining vehicles and equipment sure, I don't expect an officer to change the oil in their cruiser. That contracted service should still be open to request.
If they are prevented from pooling their resources and government forces them to pay for the protection through an unaccountable private corporation, that is progressivism.
No. The merger of corporation and state is fascism.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Libertarians want to reduce state interference in private affairs, including private businesses.
Which is fine as a principle but is almost the very definition of a two edged sword. There often are VERY good reasons why we insist on certain government involvement in more than a few private affairs. The tricky bit is keeping that beast on a short leash. Privacy is fine until it starts to affect other people.
Libertarians want to reduce state interference in private affairs, including private businesses.
Here's where the two edged sword comes in. You risk trading a government master for a private one possibly with less accountability. It's fine to keep the government out of your private business affairs until your private business affairs start to cause problems for others (intentionally or unintentionally). Governments have generally better accountability controls than private businesses do (which is a disturbing thought) in lots of cases.
The kind of crony-capitalism and delegation of state power to private businesses ("privatization", government "outsourcing") you increasingly see in the US, advocated by Democrats and Republicans alike, represents core abuses of government power that libertarians oppose.
First off, I don't think Libertarians as a group are any more ethically upstanding than Democrats or Republicans. Give Libertarians power and you'll get corrupted outcomes. The only difference will be in the fine details.
Whether the government directly controls an activity or contracts the actual performance of it is a fairly trivial distinction that is easily addressed - basically the same rules should apply either way. It gets murkier when the government abdicates responsibility for a task altogether trusting to market forces or other mechanisms to ensure a well functioning society. This has to be addressed on a case by case basis and there is no over simplified "government = bad" answer.
The only way to uphold the law is by initiating violence.
Actually, if you read it carefully jcr was suggesting that the OP should harm himself or self-pleasure himself. Or, perhaps, smuggle his digs through a security checkpoint. The specific interpretation is entirely dependent on that individuals personal lifestyle choices.
Log in or piss off.
Whether the two are equal depends on your definition of "minimal".
No, they are not arguing that they are not subject to the rule of law. They are arguing that certain laws don't apply as written, and they have a case.
They are arguing that the laws relating to reasonable oversight of police activities don't apply to them. They are arguing very literally that they are not subject to rule of law. And while there may be details we are not aware of, on the face of it, it appears they have no case at all. The mere fact that the performance of a government activity is executed by a private firm should NEVER result in reduced scrutiny when it comes to a public interest as important as policing.
Contract requirements can compel the vendor to pretty much to anything they are willing to sign up for.
They are arguing that because the contract doesn't stipulate disclosure that reasonable oversight mandated by law for very good reasons no longer applies. This is a ridiculous argument. They are arguing that laws that are not stated in a contract do not apply. Furthermore no contract can compel a vendor to violate the law.
There is no law that limits what they can agree to with regards to disclosure.
They can agree to whatever they want in the contract and IT DOESN'T MATTER if it contradicts the law. Disclosure of certain police activities is mandated by laws (up to and including the Constitution) which supersede any contract.
There is a lot of bickering on the this page about what Libertarianism does or does not believe, or the sins of government and/or corporations, but let's cut to the chase: Is there anybody here who thinks this scheme is a good idea?. As far as I can tell in the few hundred comments posted thus far, the answer is a resounding "No!"
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Hans Christian Andersen called — suggesting, you read his book.
Huh?
Sure. And yet, the US managed without Federal Income Tax until 1914 (happy anniversary). And even when it was introduced, the rate was only 1% — and only on people whose income was in millions in today's dollars.
That page describes a theoretical term — without offering actual examples except where something government-provided is involved. Because there aren't "market failures", that are solvable with more government . The road congestion is cited as an example of "market failure" — but, somehow, the solution of letting private interests build more roads and charge for their use is not suggested.
You have the page opened, why don't read the "Objections" section?
Military does not. The rest should be handled by competing private providers. Yes, including roads. If Tokyo can have competing subway lines, why can't New York?
But, seriously, you had me at the "idiot"...
Full agreement here. This rule, however, does not at all mean, police must always be government employees. The same way a mall may hire a security firm, a town may hire an entire police-department. After competitive bidding, having reviewed their references and past performance, and for a period of certain number of years, after which the contract may or may not be extended. Thus hired, they will be — by laws and their contract — subject to laws, including FOIA.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It really defies belief how you can attempt to blame the policies of a Democratic supermajority in Massachusetts on libertarians.
What is happening in Massachusetts is what Democrats do. It is precisely "this kind of crap" that libertarians are opposed to. And it is libertarian opposition to "this kind of crap" that is the reason why the Democratic establishment heaps such vitriol on libertarians.
The Massachusetts SWAT teams aren't "privatized" in the sense of laissez-faire capitalism; they don't operate independently of government, they don't provide a service in a free market, they are a government monopoly, and they aren't subject to civil lawsuits. Massachusetts SWAT teams are "privatized" in the way fascists and progressives "privatize" things: government subsidized and regulated monopolies exempted from market forces and liability, and even exempted from government accountability. That is exactly the kinds of abuse of power that libertarians are strongly opposed to.
Do some reading:
http://www.cato-unbound.org/20...
Here's some more on SWAT teams:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap
https://www.google.com/search?...
Yes, and my point is that Niemöller never actually changed or understood where is moral failure was: he always stayed a totalitarian at heart and always remained opposed to individual liberties. He simply shifted allegiances as it was politically expedient and to assuage his guilty conscience.
Huh?
So you can imagine a system where the government enforces a law that they didn't create ? Who creates the laws then ?
The purest form of libertarianism is anarchy, so a group of people can form a corporation and protect their collective property and wealth using force, as they see fit.
Not so. Libertarianism isn't about creating an anarchy, it is about creating and perfecting a constitutional republic based on Liberty. Libertarianism is about a free society under the rule of law which recognizes that the use of force by government is evil, but that it is still sometimes necessary in defense of that Liberty.
So put simply the difference is that libertarians seek to minimize the use of force by a government (or any collective association), while anarchists seek to eliminate the use of force by a government completely.
And what you describe isn't even anarchy which would be about having no enforceable rules. What you describe is simply creating a new government but calling it a corporation instead. As soon as you are talking about forming a corporation or association or any group of people with collective rules which can be enforced by the use of force, then you are not talking about anarchy.
Libertarianism is about some minimum set of laws which are meant to uphold individual freedom that a government may need to use force to enforce. The term "free market" refers to a market that operates by a set of rules which are collectively enforced through some government entity. The exercise of those rules and code of conduct are what make a market free or not.
So things like: you may not steel or commit theft through fraud, or threaten force to coerce someone into trading goods or services at a price that is not agreed upon fairly, those would all be legitimate things for a government to use force to counterbalance or try to prevent or punish.
Libertarianism is about minimizing the use of force by government to when it is absolutely necessary not eliminating it and certainly not privatizing the use of coercive force. Individual and collective self defense is part of living in a free society, but so is a well regulated free market which is a function of government. Without a set of enforced rules, you can have a market, but it most likely won't be a free market.
Police and common defense are usually cited by libertarians as the only legitimate functions of government power, so it is hard to see how anyone would be mistaken in believing that libertarian ideology is about creating an anarchy or would seek to allow the creation of private police forces outside the rule of law.
The problem with suing them is that you can only target the corp's assets. Structuring it in such a way that the 'company' doesn't actually have any is pretty standard.
That isn't entirely the end of it, though. Where the formation of the corporation is little more than a sham, one can "pierce the corporate veil" to target specific tortfeasors within the entity. There are a whole host of different factors that must be proven by a plaintiff attempting to do so, so I won't speculate on whether any particular factor would apply here.
That being said, the corporate defense appears to be an effort to distance themselves from the legal requirements applicable to a government agency. So if they claim to be immune to FOIA requests, I assume they would agree that sovereign immunity and the need to proceed through a 1983 action against their members in Federal court are equally inapplicable?
Yes, my point exactly.
You just need to take off your ideological blinders and see where it is happening around you.
What have the SWAT teams got to hide ?
"minimize"
The police ought to shut these rogue units down.
(a) TRANSFER AUTHORIZED .—(1) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of
Defense may transfer to Federal and State agencies personal prop-
erty of the Department of Defense, including small arms and
ammunition, that the Secretary determines is
(emphasis mine)
If you're not a government agency... what are you doing with all that excess military equipment acquired via the 1033 program?
References: http://www.mass.gov/eopss/agen...
https://www.justnet.org/other/...
http://www.nps.gov/legal/laws/...
Minimal is what you get after you minimize.
The difference is that libertarians want to minimize the use of force and maximize freedom which is different than anarchism which wants zero force and no enforcement of laws. Libertarians don't believe that government force will maximize liberty.
That zero government force... The 0 got dropped there... You need some use of force to enforce laws that support Liberty... Anarchists would disagree with any need for government to enforce laws.
A libertarian view is that you can do what you want with your own body. The parent was suggesting an act of personal responsibility, violent or not.
Life is not for the lazy.
If they are not really cops, that means that a private citizen is attacking me. Therefore, I am within my rights to use deadly force to protect my life, right?
Libertarianism is about some minimum set of laws
In that case, everybody is a libertarianist, we just differ in what we consider that minimum to be. In other words: unless you define the set of laws, the discussion is meaningless.
That is not true. If an individual within a corporation commits a crime then that individual the and corp maybe liable and the individual criminally so.
What the corp does is prevents other shareholders from losing everything they owe if they were not otherwise involved. Like a shareholder who simply financed the org.
Before the corp. during naval times if a ship was lost partners would be sued for everything they owed for the loss of the ship by grieving families. Even if all they did was put money in. The corp was created to limit losses to the amount put in. If someone does something illegal and doesn't get prosecuted that is an issue with DA office.
...is that they have no legal authority to arrest, detain or point a gun at me? Walmart can't send their employees out packing heat and arrest people. Why would these 'corporations' have that authority?
your quote tag got screwed up there... I hate it when I do that. lol
anyways, you're right. But, you need to understand the Libertarian point of view. The market is impartial. It's not good, it's not bad, it just is. There's a tendency for other philosophies to talk about how to "improve" the market. You're trying to make it "Good" and by doing that you have to make it partial. From the libertarian point of view, as soon as you make it partial to good, you open the doors to the question "Well, what is good?"
Is feeding the poor good?
Is creating jobs good?
Is Propping up major banks good?
I guarantee your first knee jerk reaction to each of those questions is probably incorrect. They are much more difficult questions than they seem at first.
This leads to a vacuum that makes it easy for people to abuse the system. "Let's feed the poor! The government can buy the food from me!" Is that good? Look at what the NGO's did to Haiti after the earthquake. They fed those in immediate need but destroyed the entire food distribution system in the country that had existed for decades, overnight. It will take decades more to rebuild the system.
If the market is impartial, by that, it is therefore not "bad" The second you decide it should be "good" you've created a huge, easily manipulated bureaucracy for others to exploit. Good and Bad are sadly easily confused with each other. But impartiality is easy to spot. THATS the point of a purely market driven economy.
(oh, and often I get replies to my Libertarian posts that say I'm wrong about this or that. There are lots of Libertarians out there, and lots of versions of Libertarianism. What I'm referring to is the classical form, that's pretty standard. If you search around I'm sure you can find other libertarians that disagree with me. That's the great thing about the philosophy, we let anyone talk! It's the one thing that if we didn't do, we wouldn't be libertarians anymore.)
Either you are an immigrant, who hasn't been here as long as me, or a foreigner. In America, when one talks about "government" without qualifications, the Executive government is presumed. Laws here are passed by the Legislature, which is not involved in their enforcement. Though the Legislature is often referred to as a government branch, it is distinctly different. Indeed, it is not even permanent or full-time.
But, even without all of that, the Constitution was written before we had the first President and Congress. And even before that, the laws again murder, theft, and thievery existed — whether they were presented as "God-given" or just self-evident, they didn't need to be put on paper for people to all agree, these things are wrong.
Now, a law banning "overly large" soda-drinks — that is something, you need a government to invent. And an Illiberal one at that.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
As a libertarian...
your signature states:
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY!
The amendment for direct election of senators, vs their previous election by state legislatures. These seem like contradictory ideas to me, why do you not view them that way?
You assume they even bother with propaganda or pretense anymore...
Citizen, you will be sent indefinitely to a work camp. Cease resisting and comply with the corporate security officer's request.
Ah but the corporations are owned by the shareholders, in this case it would be the police boards that pay into each 'corporation' but no matter how far down the line the money the police spend belongs to we the people so the 'shares' belong to 'we the people' as technically we are supposed to own the governement.
The US government has been a corporation since 1871, and the citizens lost control of their money in 1933. If you are looking for the actual owners of the country, check the "bank" section in the yellow pages.
lucm, indeed.
You can sue the hell out of the government, too. This loophole unfortunately makes it so that you can't easily collect the evidence to prove intent or willful negligence, which is where big judgements come from.
I don't think people plan much for the day they become the "customer" of a SWAT team and I don't even wish that you become one ;).
All anarcho-capitalists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists.
And is there really a "huge difference"? Libertarians want less government. Anarcho-capitalists simply want a little less than that.
which does have legal prescient thanks to Ronny Raygun
"It happened before, so it's 100% okay." Well, the government violated the constitution numerous times in the past, so I guess violating the constitution is now fine and dandy.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It would be a libertarian nirvana if it were followed through to it's logical conclusion. Which would be holding the corporation and officers directly responsible for their actions, both criminal and civil. But that's not what they have or want. They want the secrecy of a private corporation along with the myriads of legal protections that a police force has.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
It's not a contracting issue, it's misuse of the system. If there needs to be a cross-jurisdiction government body, they should do what's been done for years, form a special district. There's tens of thousands of special districts across the US, administering sewer systems, water systems, even mosquito control. All with board directors subject to citizen review and recall.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Because I think the direct election of Senators has turned it into a rather stupid popularity contest where incumbents who control vast amounts of money and have long list of corporate sponsors hold office for decades.
When the Senate is supposed to be appointed by the state governments to give them a voice. Its supposed to check federal power and protect States rights. Cooperative federalism is destroying the fundamental structure of how this country was designed to operate and its only possible because the 17th amendment killed state power.
Also its harder to buy off a plurality of state legislators who have a much higher turnover rate to keep 'your guy' in federal office.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
1. Firearms purchases and acquisitions need to be evaluated.
2. If they are funded by tax payer money, aren't there certain records that have to be available?
3. If they are a non-profit, there needs to be an auditing of their books to account for the dollars spent vs taken in.
We may have the worst Supreme Court in American history. Yet these blind, old right wing, hogs who look for all the world like a bunch of adle brained, badly dressed drag queens in their black robes may well have tossed us a huge pile of peanuts. You see these geniuses declared that a corporation is a person. Therefore we can assume that a corporation and a person have exactly the same status in law. So if an ordinairy citizen can be compelled to hand over all kinds of information by a court then so can an incorporation. And beyond that any corporation that acts outside of public interest can have its corporation nulled. I'll bet many people feel that a swat team operating as a corporation is against the best interest of the public and that we can sue to dissolve those swat teams. The fact that they do not want to be free and open with their information indicates that they have guilt or liability and need to be put under scrutiny in the courts.
The Free Market and Libertarianism are not the same thing, any more than Socialism and Communism are the same thing.
Libertarianism is a philosophy that extends to government in general and not just economics.
The Free Market, as many have noted, rarely exists, and while it's fashionable to blame it all on government, any market that has economies of scale bears within it the seeds of its own destruction, as competitors are pushed via its positive-feedback mechanisms towards either monoply or extinction. And don't get me started on the distorted version of Darwinism that many market fans espouse.
if The Market were an abstract quantity, we'd say "have at it", but many markets affect our daily lives in terms of livelihood, medical care, and even basic freedom. Government is one of the few mechanisms that can dampen the positive-feedback mechanisms of a spiralling market and ensure that we aren't all simply crushed under the juggernaut.
The idealized role of Libertarianism is to ensure that Government itself doesn't become a juggernaut. However, Libertarians often undercut themselves by uncritically claiming that The Market Will Make Everything Wonderful, if you just let it. It won't. It allows more scope for trial-and-error than central planning, but that doesn't mean that some of the results cannot be far worse as well as far better.
The Libertarian label is often also adopted by deadbeats who want the benefits of government while not actually having to pay for them. It's really amazing how many BMW owners I know who cry "I'm Libertarian" while cruising down the Interstate Highways.
> Last I heard private security does NOT have the same powers as police. Not even close.
Unless they ARE police.
Believe it or not, this situation is less uncommon than you might think, and not exactly new. Now I live in MA so maybe this is not how it works elsewhere but, I have encountered the same speech at two universities, first as a student and then as an employee.
What they had to say was that University Police are employees of the University however they are also Police, which is why they use the term Police and NOT security. The claim is that their powers are granted to them by the state police.
So it has apparently been the case for at least the past 15 years or so, and likely a lot longer, that this situation was considered legal by the state police, who apparently grant these powers.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Wow! This is an outrageous sham. According to NEMLECs IRS 990 form, which is a public record, they had $85K in revenue last year and their primary purpose is:
"To promote and pursue training and education, research, studies and programs to assist and improve police departments that comprise the Northeast Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council (NEMLEC) and its operations to provide means for the reciept of gifts a
"Through a comedy show the organization helped to raise funds to pay for various law enforcement training sessions for members of the northeastern Massachusetts law enforcement community."
The golf tournament raised $30K but had expenses of $18K for a net of $12K. The comedy show raised $17K but had expenses of $12K for a net of $5K. The only asset they has is $70K in cash.
They are either lying to the people of Massachusetts or the IRS.
then here must be specific contracts that are drawn up to pay for their services. If that is true then the public has a right to see any and all documents pertaining to the nature of these contracts. Failure to comply should be met with withholding of public funds, as otherwise rampant theft of public property might be taking place without oversight. Perhaps, this is the primary reason they are so reluctant to let anyone know what they are doing.
I think what most are missing here, is that let's say Microsoft burst in they're a corp right? Do they have the right, the authority to bust into a home? If not and it doesn't apply to MS then what pretense does that private SWAT team have? If the money comes from public money and they are run by police or contracted by the local gov, then private corp status is moot.
Blackwatch was a private security firm, they still had to answer for what they did.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
If nothing else turn them in to the EPA when they have a firefight. I'm sure there is something in EPA regs about lead pollution.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
That was my first thought, as well. But not just BATFE - it seems that MA itself has an assault weapon ban on the books, and prohibits "high-capacity" magazines. Furthermore, carry (even open) requires a permit. Let's see how these "private" guys are in compliance with all this.
There is just so many things wrong with this concept it is hard to know where to begin...
If they are private corporations, then where is their proof that they complied with the open bidding laws every state has to gain the contract for the SWAT services? Where is the contract that specifies the services to be rendered? Where is the contract that specifies the amounts to be paid for those services? Where is the assurances that they won't use state resources in providing those services? Since it is tax dollars paying for the services, where is the state audit trails required of all grants and contracts that ensures proper spending is occurring and that any over-runs or under-runs are not being exploited? If federal grant money is used, where is that audit trail and if the amount is over $25,000 where is the FFATA reports on the federal share spent as required by https://www.fsrs.gov/ ?
I am in state government and have to deal with these issues daily. By them saying they are private corporations, it throws them into the same category as any other private corporation having to contract for their services which kicks in so many laws it will make your head spin.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
> Last I heard private security does NOT have the same powers as police. Not even close.
Unless they ARE police.
Believe it or not, this situation is less uncommon than you might think, and not exactly new.
This is quite correct. You don't have to be working for a public police department to be a police officer. All you need is to be deputized, which usually involves passing some sort of exam and then getting a letter signed by some controlling police agency (usually state or municipal). There are many examples. As the parent pointed out, campus police at most universities work this way. Some high schools also have police officers on salary, and some private business which accommodate a large public population (eg. shopping malls, etc.) may employ deputized police officers for security. They have largely the same arrest powers that ordinary police officers do, so for example you could be charged with resisting arrest if you try to run away from them when they stop you, etc. It is a big mistake to assume that you don't have to do what they tell you just because they are working for a private company rather than the city or state.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
That would be Blackwater not Blackwatch...
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Although that is true, there are also many states that have laws on the books regarding police officers "moonlighting" since so many of them got caught double dipping claiming their police salary at the same time they were working their security stint. My state of WV is one such state because of the massive amounts of abuse like that going on. It got so bad in fact that there is legislation that was passed forbidding state police officers from moonlighting.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
But the logical extreme of modern-day Libertarianism is Anarchism.
Slippery slope fallacy. That I support having *limited* government does not mean that I support *NO* government.
I don't read AC A human right
OK fine, but why mislabel it? In the Progressive movement, the state acts as a counter-balance to firms. It works until firms, usually via regulatory capture and/or loophole exploitation find a way around it. In fascism, they bypass the progressive stage and go straight to regulatory capture via tight binding with the state.
If a re-invigoration of some kind of progressive movement isn't your antidote to fascism, what is? Letting the firms do anything because somebody told you they would ride in on rainbow-colored unicorns if you did that?
It just never ceases to amaze me how some people (not saying you're in this class) actually prescribe laissez-faire as the antidote to fascism. It's literally like telling us to give them a mile in order to solve that pesky inch-taking problem.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
If they are 501 C(3), let them raise money the way the other charities do and get the hell off of my tax bill. I donate to police and firefighter charities but I make sure I know where my money is going.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
They are against the initiation of force. If force is initiated by someone else, force in response is not an anti-Libertarian position.
Firstly, it can be boiled down to simple pragmatism: If Senators are elected the same way as Representatives, what is the point of the Senate's existence at all?
How can you know if the person giving you commands or arresting you is a deputized police officer and not just a security officer? Can you be charged for running from the police if you run from whom you believe is a security guard that hasn't identified himself as a police officer?
After reading the Wikipedia entry for "Anarcho Capitalism" I am pretty sure that it isn't really a thing. Really. It is just putting together two opposite meaning words to mess with people. Libertarianism fundamentally believes in government which is the opposite of anarchy.
Sue, schmoo. Lien their bonds. No bond, no work.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Quite right. If you contract out your security, you get a choice what kind of service you want: with-SWAT or without-SWAT. Most people are going to opt for without-SWAT. That's, generally speaking, the libertarian view: you should have a choice.
Democrats argue that how policing and security are provided should be left to government experts; they obviously have decided they need SWAT teams, and you don't have a choice in the matter.
Here's a map of botched paramilitary police raids, compiled by the Cato institute, which is highly critical of these practices:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap
You're not getting it: I'm not mislabeling it. This is what Hitler promised (direct quote) in order to get elected:
Here is what Hitler said about America:
That could come straight from Hillary or Obama or any other modern progressive. I doubt anybody who voted for him wanted to murder millions of Jews or fight a hopeless war; that happens later, when these people are at risk of losing power because they inevitably utterly fail to deliver what they promise and instead end up just wrecking the economy.
Libertarians don't want to "let firms do anything"; there is a minimum level of regulation that is necessary, but we are far beyond that. Furthermore, regulation often protects firms from liability and competition, and that is exactly why companies get away with murder today. We need to get tough on companies, and that means generally: no subsidies, no exemption from liability due to regulation, and no artificial monopolies, exactly the opposite of what progressives actually do.
Even worse, we are at a stage now where Democrats propose bad regulations in order to fix problems that were caused by bad regulations in the first place. When that sort of thing goes unchecked for too long, it spirals out of control until the economy collapses entirely, and usually democracy with it.
Although that is true, there are also many states that have laws on the books regarding police officers "moonlighting" since so many of them got caught double dipping claiming their police salary at the same time they were working their security stint.
I think you missed the point of my post. I'm not talking about city police officers moonlighting, I'm talking about officers working for private companies as their only job. As I said in my post, you don't have to work for a police department to be a police officer.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I could see that backfiring on them in a big way. If the MA SWAT teams are actually private agencies, then that could be used by a clever lawyer to damage their qualified immunity. If they're actually some sort of private contractors, then suing them would get a whole lot easier, since qualified immunity probably only applies to state and federal employees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
All of us anarcho-capitalists beg to differ.
Anarchy is categorized by a lack of rulers\the state. Capitalism is a system whereby the means of production are privately owned. There is no inherent contradiction.
Other than all those libertarians that don't fundamentally believe in government, you mean.
LOL, Godwin's law much? Like all too many discussions on the 'net, this may have devolved into a pointless semantic debate too. It's almost like you vehemently agree with me... except that you hate Democrats and/or the label "Progressive" so much that you just *have* to identify it with nazis... and that doesn't seem very constructive to me.
The one little point of light here (if I may borrow that phrase) is that you agree that some regulation is necessary. You claim we're beyond it. I would submit that it's not a question of quantity, but of type. The bad type of regulation is written by regulators who walk through the revolving doors corp, gov, corp. It also occurs org, gov, org where "org" can mean unions. merger of corporation and state (fascism) is bad, but so is merger of union and state (communism) (see, California public employee unions where it's particularly bad).
I think our big difference is that you are keyed into the org, gov, org revolving door which is a big Dem problem, as opposed to the corp, gov, corp revolving door which is more GOP (although I think both parties are in on that one).
I offer for your consideration the idea that reducing regulation isn't the answer--restoring INTEGRITY is the answer. That's not an easy path; but IMHO it's the right one. I understand that India has been grappling with this lately. I don't know exactly what the status is; but I follow an Indian expatriate on Twitter and every once in a while he'll mention a guy over there who is crusading against corruption.
It may seem dark here; but if you read your US history you'll see that some of the past corruption was so egregious, it makes Watergate look like a little white lie.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
First of all, it was you and others who accused libertarians of somehow being linked to Massachusetts going the direction of serfdom and fascism. I was responding to that and pointing out how ludicrous it is for a state run by a Democratic, progressive supermajority.
You and others correctly identified SWAT teams and the privatization of SWAT teams as having fascist tendencies, but for some utterly weird reason you make excuses for the party in power that instituted those policies and blame people with no political power whatsoever.
Restoring integrity? How can you restore something that has never existed? What we have today is a pretty good democracy with, by and large, pretty decent and well meaning people, in all political parties. We aren't going to get any better people or any better policies. All we can do is decide how much power we give these people and how much money we let them spend on corporate cronyism.
Politicians crusade against corruption all the time, it gets them votes. Many of them may even seriously believe that they are doing something. But that doesn't change the fact that they fail.
Nowhere have I said that Republicans are any better. It's you who is foolishly viewing this as an us-vs-them kind of discussion.
All I am saying is that people who believe that the Democrats are saviors from this kind of governmental abuse of power are fooling themselves.
And if you have an ounce of intelligence, then do what I and others did, leave the Democratic party, become an independent, and learn about what liberalism actually means. The problem in both parties is that they hate liberalism and individuality.
Sigh... words in my mouth, improper inferences, strawmen... most of it just not worth dealing with, as I feel it would just lead to an ever-expanding thread. So. I'll cherry-pick one:
And now I offer as an example of someone who didn't fail at fighting corruption, Fiorello H. La Guardia, who you might only know as the name of an airport. I'm sure you'll find some reason to hate him for his "statism", or say that it's not possible today, or that you can't do that kind of thing within today's major parties. I respectfully disagree.
Good-night. I'm done.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I didn't "put words in your mouth", which implies misquoting. I paraphrase or respond to what I think you said. That's what people do in debates. They also misunderstand each other. That's why people clarify. You're just using these baseless accusations to avoid debate.
The term "corruption" has several meanings. Up to now, we've been using it in the informal sense of "successful rent seeking", which is usually not illegal. Now you switched meanings to the illegal kind (bribery, racketeering). Is that sort of dishonest debating strategy so deeply ingrained in you that you don't notice, or do you simply not understand the difference between illegal corruption and rent seeking?
And I'm not sure what the reference to LaGuardia and corruption is supposed to prove. While fighting illegal corruption is certainly a worthwhile cause, many politicians do it while they support massive rent seeking or even are corrupt themselves. LaGuardia was eminently "corrupt" in the rent seeking sense. Filthy, crowded, decaying LaGuardia airport, built for a wealthy elite of air travelers, is symbolic of his politics and where the country is heading under progressivism, as will be the tax dollars and new debt used to fix it up.
I don't think the text of the Aereo ruling was "nobody is allowed to use loopholes anymore."
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
Having watched it play out many times, libertarians always seem to find some reason to paint "commune" projects by poor and minority groups as not counting, while middle class white ones seem to get a pass even when they significantly less then voluntary. The problem is, what counts as voluntary is subjective and can be easily be twisted to enforce racism and classism.
Charge them with National Firearms Act violations. $10k fine plus ten years in Federal PMITA prison for each violation. That's every single silencer, machine gun, short-barreled shotgun and short-barreled rifle that they didn't put on a Form 4.
I don't recall that we were discussing Rent-Seeking at all. Our discussion seemed to center more around Regulatory Capture. I introduced Corruption as a new branch in the discussion. So like I said, the whole thing revolves around an ever-expanding Semantic Debate which perhaps you might see can be tiring after a while. We started on the semantics of Progressivism and it just started spiraling more and more out of control from there...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Of course we should remember, this is really the red herring. It isn't so much an issue that a few private institutions have police of their own that they pay,.... no.
The issue is that the public police, the ones in charge of actual law enforcement and protection of the community, are outsourcing their functions to private entities; and then claiming that makes them exempt from open records.
Who carses that Officer Joe investigating underage drinking in the dorms has arrest power? The real problem is the city/county/state are using them to do an end run around records laws. AND as someone who lives in MA I can't help but note:
Having read the election material in MA, this is the same Association that writes the against opinions whenever anything comes up related to Marijuana Legalization. So in addition to arguing for secret raids, they also argue in favor of retaining the laws that are used to justify most of the same raids.
Government is very lucrative business.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Rent seeking, regulatory capture, and criminal corruption are all forms of political corruption. The forms of political corruption that have been relevant to our discussion are almost entirely rent seeking and regulatory capture, because those are the prevalent forms of corruption under Western democracies, as well as progressivism and fascism. Your attempts to introduce discussions of other forms of corruption was apparently simply intended to deflect the discussion onto something irrelevant.
This is not a "semantic debate". You have given examples of progressivism and progressivist politicians, and I agree that those are progressives. We are talking about the long term consequences of those policies and their historical similarities and ties to fascism.
It is simply a historical fact that on economic issues, modern American progressives share a great deal with German fascists of the late 1920's and early 1930's (before they simply became genocidal maniacs); you can see that by looking at speeches, policies, and party programs. If you like to rationalize and justify those similarities, go right ahead and give it a try, but denying them is silly.
(On social issues, modern social conservatives in the US share a great deal with German fascists of the 1930's. That's probably why both progressives and liberals can keep accusing each other of fascist tendencies: you both have them.)
You asked what we should do as a society, and the answer is pretty simple: go back to classical liberalism, the philosophy of the enlightenment and reason that this nation was founded on.
Of course, I meant: That's probably why both progressives and conservatives can keep accusing each other of fascist tendencies: you both have them
You asked what we should do as a society, and the answer is pretty simple: go back to classical liberalism, the philosophy of the enlightenment and reason that this nation was founded on.
This is tantamout to my call to "restore integrity". I read "classical liberalism" as being very much laissez-faire, which we never totally had either (see, the Whiskey Rebellion, pretty early in the Republic).
I think we'd actually agree that a sparse regulatory regime accompanied by men of honor would do a fine job. I just don't think we have enough men of honor these days for that to work.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I'm glad you find a sparse regulatory regime desirable. But we don't agree on the "men of honor" thing. The role of government should be limited enough that it doesn't matter whether it's run by crooks.
Yours is the age-old confusion of progressives and intellectuals, the erroneous assumption that "government is a way in which you put unselfish and ungreedy men in charge of selfish and greedy men. But government is an institution whereby the people who have the greatest drive get power over their fellow men get in positions of controlling them." (Friedman)
I didn't say we had it; I said it was the principle we should be striving towards, as opposed to striving towards progressivism. Actually, simply getting back to making federal spending less than 10% of GDP and prohibiting all branches of the federal government from keeping records on law-abiding citizens in any form would be a good start, both conditions that existed throughout most of our history.
You keep trying to label me, and you haven't hit the mark yet. If anything, I consider myself a "whatworksian". If it works, I'm for it. Now "works" is a subjective term. You know, there used to be some consensus in this country on what it meant for things to "work". Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan would tear each other apart; but they were both cut from similar cloth and if you asked either one of them they'd say they'd certainly agree they wanted to make America work.
All of this labeling... it isn't really very constructive. I don't think we should be striving towards any particular ideology. If some ideological strain starts leading us down a path that is contrary to our objectives, then it's time to abandon the ideology, not the objective.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
http://www.corporatecrimerepor...
Fines or imprisoning CEOs do little to change the pattern of relationships and values and policies that make an organization what it is, any more than a human body loosing some skill cells or even brain cells usually changes how a person behaves very much.
Seriously, why should any corporate communications have any expectation of privacy? Corporations with "limited liability" are chartered for the public interest. 150 years ago, US Americans put such creatures on very short leashes because they had seen what trouble resulted from big British corporations in the American colonies. Individuals have now lost pretty much all informational privacy due to large corporations and the current internet. Why should bigger more powerful creatures than humans like corporation have more privacy in practice than humans? See also David Brin's "The Transparent Society". Any argument that corporations need privacy (like for salaries or payments for services) for some sort of commercial advantage is trumped by the public interest in understanding what corporations are doing and also that if all corporations were transparent there would be a level playing field. Granted, it would require new ways of doing business, but books like "Honest Business" also extol the value of "open books". Or perhaps corporations should be forced to choose -- if they want limited liability for shareholders then they need to be transparent; if every shareholder accepts full responsibility for all actions of the organization, then they can have privacy?
And see also my comments from 2000, the relevant section copied below (sadly a lot of links there have rotted):
http://www.dougengelbart.org/c...
========= machine intelligence is already here =========
I personally think machine evolution is unstoppable, and the best hope
for humanity is the noble cowardice of creating refugia and trying, like
the duckweed, to create human (and other) life faster than other forces
can destroy it. [Well, I now in 2014 think there are also other options, like symbiosis, maybe friendly AI, and in general trying to be nicer to each other like with a basic income in hopes that leads to a happier singularity...]
Note, I'm not saying machine evolution won't have a human component --
in that sense, a corporation or any bureaucracy is already a separate
machine intelligence, just not a very smart or resilient one. This sense
of the corporation comes out of Langdon Winner's book "Autonomous
Technology: Technics out of control as a theme in political thought".
http://www.rpi.edu/~winner/
You may have a tough time believing this, but Winner makes a convincing
case. He suggests that all successful organizations "reverse-adapt"
their goals and their environment to ensure their continued survival.
These corporate machine intelligences are already driving for better
machine intelligences -- faster, more efficient, cheaper, and more
resilient. People forget that corporate charters used to be routinely
revoked for behavior outside the immediate public good, and that
corporations were not considered persons until around 1886 (that
decision perhaps being the first major example of a machine using the
political/social process of its own ends).
http://www.adbusters.org/magaz...
Corporate charters are granted supposedly because society believe it is
in the best interest of *society* for corporations to exist.
But, when was the last time people were able to pull the "charter" plug
on a corporation not acting in the public interest? It's hard, and it
will get harder when corporations don't ne
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
You have to label ideologies in order to discuss them. It's the labeling of *people* that IMHO, is unconstructive and just leads to primitive tribal conflict.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
So you give more examples of leaders that spent vast amounts of money and interfered in every aspect of economic and private life.
What you call "our objectives" and "what works" is what other people call "an ideology". We have more common names for your "whatworksianism" and "honorablemenism", you're just unwilling to use them because you like to live under the illusion that they are new ideologies, rather than known and failed ones.
Yes, an anti-liberal consensus among big-government Democrats and big-government Republicans, a consensus mostly rooted in their common lust for power, money, and votes, and the lack of public awareness of what they have been up to.
Fortunately, people slowly seem to be waking up to the fact that this is a lousy direction for the country to go in and the the country's problems will not get fixed by attempting to send "honorable men" to Washington and that the right direction is to stop trying to do "what works".
I think the Internet is helping by not letting politicians hide behind the filter of sycophantic national news media, as they used to.
We have to agree to disagree at some point. We can't even agree on what it is we disagree on. I think this is also a fine example of how the Internet fails as a communication medium in some ways. If this were a conversation IRL, I think a lot of problems would be smoothed over by facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, etc.
Of course I've had a *few* conversations IRL that were just as bad as some of these things that blow up on the Internet. A unionized teacher in a certain cafe comes to mind. Me: We won't really fix education until we bust the union. Him: Explosion, including all kinds of odd assumpitons about me such as, "you were raised in Marin County and know nothing about the inner city" when in reality I was raised 3000 miles away and have at least a passing familiarity with "the hood" of both a large city and a small town.
Anyway, let's just agree to disagree. I'm not what you think I am, and you're probably not what I think you are. If you're ever in Northern California, you're welcome to have coffee or a beer... but no 420. I've got long hair and people offer me free pot sometimes because "surely the hippie would like to toke with us", but I have no interest. That kind of stereotyping IRL gets dismissed quickly and politely. On the Internet it's a PiTA.
Anyway, I'm done. You sir (m'am?), may have the last word if you so desire.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The argument being made is irrelevant.
It is easy to show that a right to public oversight over private entities arises under the 9th Amendment as a right "retained by the people". We show this using a technique known since Euclid, namely proof by contradiction.
Assume that no such right exists. Then it follows that the government may infringe any right by appropriate delegation to third party entities. From this, it follows that no rights exists. But the Bill of Rights, the highest law in the land (superior even to the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution, as the history clearly shows) provides both for explicit rights and unstated rights. Hence we have a contradiction, and the assumption is shown to be invalid.
Government may not hide behind 3rd party entities, nor may it hide behind private property. As a corollary, it follows that the Bill of Rights can and often does limit the actions of private entities.
Law such as contract law and property law is only valid to the extant that it does not violate fundamental rights, including any rights arising under the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people) or the 10th Amendment (rights reserved to the people) that are not explicitly stated in the law.
Thus, in this case, an argument based on contract law is irrelevant. If the request for information was appropriate, and if the refusal to provide information was made by a legal professional, sworn to uphold the Bill of Rights, while engaged in the practice of law, it follows that person is in violation of that oath.
All rights have limits, of course. In most situations, the only oversight that is required is of the long-term variety. In the case of government, long term oversight allows police, military, and espionage operations to be carried out with some degree of secrecy when appropriate. For instance, the identities of undercover agents may be concealed under many circumstances, for a reasonable period of time. In the case of private entities, long term oversight allows trade secrets to be kept for a reasonable period of time.
The people have the final authority to decide what is appropriate. That is inherent in the nature of rights retained to the people.
In practice, getting the legal profession to recognize the authority of the 9th and 10th Amendments seems difficult (aside from a few well known exceptions such as Roe vs Wade). This problem can primarily be ascribed to ethical conflicts on interest that arise on the part of the legal profession with respect to this issue. That last point that has been made numerous times on Slashdot during prior discussions, in the context of discussions on copyright law, patent law, contract law, and property law, so I won't belabour the point here.
Law is far too important to trust to the legal profession.