If reality is to follow sci-fi (as is right and proper), please concentrate on getting us a robot labor based decadent society in which humans can live centuries of meaningless pleasure before anyone worries about the fate of humanity.
As long as the people believe in some fashion that the state is overall a positive thing, there will be support for whichever action the rulers of that state choose to take.
This trust index is shaped by many factors and is the more opinions the people have (access to) the more likely it changes.
Instituting a private police takes away a big chunk of trust from the state. Safety usually trumps just about everything (including privacy, civil rights) and most people in "democratic states" such as the UK, gladly conform to intrusions on their lives as long as they are made by the safety-provider, the state. When the monopoly of the safety-provider is broken, demands on the people will be harder to enforce.
Why should I pay my taxes to the state if BobbyCorps Inc (limited liability) provides a service more to my liking (i.e. takes harsher measures against a group of people I particularly dislike). Why should I go to war for this state if it isn't protecting my neighborhood. I'll more likely invest my limited time and/or money in BobbyCorps.
Then there's the whole agenda issue. The state polices have very explicit agendas and admission rules. Granted, they are usually subverted to some extent (as is everything), but the majority of the people usually trust the police with their safety. Instances of people revolting over an arrest are (statistically) rare and brief. What happens when a RozzerCopper Ltd. "officer" arrests a BobbyCorps executive? Or will they not be allowed to do so because it is a person out of jurisdiction?
That brings us to the power structure issue. If one particular instance of state police runs into trouble (maybe they are outgunned, maybe they have no jurisdiction over that matter) the state usually provides backup up to and including the army. Will the state, with a separate agenda from BobbyCorp, also provide unlimited backup to them? Even against the wishes of the RozzerCopper administrators?
Have you stopped to consider that they might actually own the rights to bird song? What if they signed god?
From rumblefish.com: "The basic criteria are a sizeable artist roster, both master and publishing rights available worldwide, an artist-friendly reputation and a proactive approach to collaborating."
Artist roster - just about every major European composer ever. And every animal, of couse. And yes, I know composers are animals too.
Publishing rights - I seem to remember that the church had exclusive rights to publish. Music or anything else.
Artist-friendly - Sure, I'm not even going to talk about all the Michelangelos. When composers wanted money, hymns arose. I'm not too sure about the castrati thing though.
Proactive collaboration - well, I think throughout history we've seen people inspired by god collaborate to do some pretty incredible things. Richard the Lion-heart had many fellow collaborators who went on to spread content to other markets.
It's wouldn't be the first time that god took sides, you know?
He was arrested under the Terrorism Act of 2000 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58
"58 Collection of information.
(1) A person commits an offence if —
(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind."
Regarding (a) is piloting a plane likely to be useful to a person preparing an act of terrorism? What about driving a truck? Or having a map, knowing chemistry or the alphabet?
As to (b), if someone were to receive "likely information" mingled with (buried in) newsletters, commercial/religious pamphlets, encyclopedias, would that someone always be found guilty or is there some room in the law for other interpretations? Point (1) seems to state that the offence is committed every time this happens.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, Ackbar you old fool, now IS the time to strike (a deal).
Can Nissan be brought up on charges of sodomy accessory (not to confuse with the accessories one might use upon going route 3)?
If reality is to follow sci-fi (as is right and proper), please concentrate on getting us a robot labor based decadent society in which humans can live centuries of meaningless pleasure before anyone worries about the fate of humanity.
As long as the people believe in some fashion that the state is overall a positive thing, there will be support for whichever action the rulers of that state choose to take. This trust index is shaped by many factors and is the more opinions the people have (access to) the more likely it changes.
Instituting a private police takes away a big chunk of trust from the state. Safety usually trumps just about everything (including privacy, civil rights) and most people in "democratic states" such as the UK, gladly conform to intrusions on their lives as long as they are made by the safety-provider, the state. When the monopoly of the safety-provider is broken, demands on the people will be harder to enforce.
Why should I pay my taxes to the state if BobbyCorps Inc (limited liability) provides a service more to my liking (i.e. takes harsher measures against a group of people I particularly dislike). Why should I go to war for this state if it isn't protecting my neighborhood. I'll more likely invest my limited time and/or money in BobbyCorps.
Then there's the whole agenda issue. The state polices have very explicit agendas and admission rules. Granted, they are usually subverted to some extent (as is everything), but the majority of the people usually trust the police with their safety. Instances of people revolting over an arrest are (statistically) rare and brief. What happens when a RozzerCopper Ltd. "officer" arrests a BobbyCorps executive? Or will they not be allowed to do so because it is a person out of jurisdiction?
That brings us to the power structure issue. If one particular instance of state police runs into trouble (maybe they are outgunned, maybe they have no jurisdiction over that matter) the state usually provides backup up to and including the army. Will the state, with a separate agenda from BobbyCorp, also provide unlimited backup to them? Even against the wishes of the RozzerCopper administrators?
Have you stopped to consider that they might actually own the rights to bird song? What if they signed god?
From rumblefish.com: "The basic criteria are a sizeable artist roster, both master and publishing rights available worldwide, an artist-friendly reputation and a proactive approach to collaborating."
Artist roster - just about every major European composer ever. And every animal, of couse. And yes, I know composers are animals too.
Publishing rights - I seem to remember that the church had exclusive rights to publish. Music or anything else.
Artist-friendly - Sure, I'm not even going to talk about all the Michelangelos. When composers wanted money, hymns arose. I'm not too sure about the castrati thing though.
Proactive collaboration - well, I think throughout history we've seen people inspired by god collaborate to do some pretty incredible things. Richard the Lion-heart had many fellow collaborators who went on to spread content to other markets.
It's wouldn't be the first time that god took sides, you know?
He was arrested under the Terrorism Act of 2000 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58
"58 Collection of information.
(1) A person commits an offence if —
(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind."
Regarding (a) is piloting a plane likely to be useful to a person preparing an act of terrorism? What about driving a truck? Or having a map, knowing chemistry or the alphabet?
As to (b), if someone were to receive "likely information" mingled with (buried in) newsletters, commercial/religious pamphlets, encyclopedias, would that someone always be found guilty or is there some room in the law for other interpretations? Point (1) seems to state that the offence is committed every time this happens.