Code of Silence: 'Don't Rat Out Other Cops'

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4862057&page=1

I think most police officers are good people who do the job for the right reasons. But it's like the thousands of planes that land every day--you don't hear much about them. You do, however, hear about the plane that crashes. So, too, do we--sometimes--hear about the cop that goes wrong.

As a part of our consent to be governed, we give police officers a great deal of authority in our society. When that authority is clearly abused, justice should be as swift and as sure as it is for any offender.

I'm for paying police officers more (in needed situations), issuing them more and better equipment (in needed situations), providing them more training, and expecting more of them--and assault under the color of authority is not one of the expectations. The politicians--decent politicians--need to do more to proactively ensure that these abuses of power don't happen in the first place and that if abuses do happen, the corrupt cops are punished.

Sorry, Republican18. If you are not corrupt--and I have no reason to think that you are--this is not about you.

5/17/2008 4:41:04 AM

i agree

5/17/2008 4:49:23 AM

hey im all for punishing cops who betray the public trust and abuse their power

5/17/2008 6:05:59 AM

Civilians follow the "snitches get stitches!" mentality, not surprising in the least that cops do it too.

[Edited on May 17, 2008 at 6:48 AM. Reason : better wording]

5/17/2008 6:47:52 AM

I read that article, and it is chilling. This is beyond "Corrupt Cops". This is a corrupt police force which will cover up corrupt cops right at the top level. And if CPD is like that, is there any reason to believe that the other major ones in the country are not like that?

The article sounded like it was about a police force in South America or in an Arab country.

Really, if that is the reality, what right does America #1 have to boast about its human rights, democracy, and freedom, and then try to exert those IDEALS on other countries, when it doesn't meaure up to them by a long shot (at least in that respect)???

Quote :

"Chicago police arrived to take a report, but according to Obrycka's lawyer, Terry Ekl, they ignored the bar owner's key evidence: the surveillance tapes. Abbate initially was charged with a misdemeanor, and it was only after the tape of the beating was leaked to the press that the charges were upgraded to felonies. He's since pleaded not guilty. "If there hadn't been this videotape," said Ekl, "there would have been no charges in this case.""

Quote :

"That's a serious charge to make about the second-largest police force in the country, but new research [ http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/brokensystem-111407.pdf ] from the University of Chicago also concluded that little is done to punish officers. As the result of a lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department, University of Chicago law professor Craig Futterman was given access to over 10,000 complaints of police abuse. He found that only 19 of those resulted in what he calls meaningful discipline — suspension for a week or more. "The code of silence is very real," Futterman said. "Don't rat out other cops. If you do, there'll be real consequences.""

Quote :

"Futterman says some officers with as many as 50 complaints against them in the last few years have never been disciplined or flagged. He points out that most cops rack up few, if any, complaints. In fact, fewer than 5 percent of the cops on the beat, Futterman's study found, are responsible for nearly half of all abuse complaints in the entire department. "The vast majority of officers who would like nothing more than to get rid of these guys who are doing the bad stuff, if they open their mouths, the culture tells them that they're gonna be the ones who pay," Futterman said. "

Quote :

"911 calls from inside the bar managed to get through, but a total of nine police vehicles rolled up and then quickly rolled away after being greeted by the same Sgt. Planey. Police didn't investigate until much later, after the off-duty officers had left. The businessmen suffered numerous injuries from the brutal beatings, including broken ribs, a broken nose, a herniated disk, several bodily contusions and much more. Futterman describes the actions captured on tape and the response to the incident as "disgusting." In fact, there was little sign of investigation in the Jefferson Tap case for months. After public outcry, Sgt. Planey and two other officers were hit with felony battery charges. They have since pleaded not guilty. "

That's just revolting and sickening.

But here is the most disgusting thing, said by the Police Superintendent of the CPD, who, as he says, is trying to send a strong message that such stuff will no longer be tolerated:

Quote :

"Jodi Weis, a former FBI agent, is the first outside superintendant of police ever to run the Chicago department, and he's trying to send a "strong message." "We just have to send … a unified [message] that misconduct, brutality, lying, cheating, stealing simply will not be tolerated," he said. "What I've been telling the officers, you know, this concept or idea or practice that you may have had in the past, where if something bad happens I just won't say anything, forget about it. With technology out there, you've got to assume it's gonna be captured on videotape. You just have to assume that.""

Oh, I get it now. Don't be dirty cops because you might get caught!

Fucking horribly disgusting and utterly heinous.

Go to hell, Jodi Weis, and all dirty cops, and all those who cover them up.

P.S. If you look at it, the US Armed Forces are the same. 5% of the them commit 50% of the crimes (murders, massacres, rapes, torture, etc), and then their crimes are mostly covered up, unless their actions become public knowledge, and then action is taken due to public outcry.

Don't cry murdered, raped, tortured Iraqis, they treat their own the same back on their own soil.


[Edited on May 17, 2008 at 6:59 AM. Reason : Go ahead, ignore the issue & call me an America-hater/basher... you know who this is directed to...]

5/17/2008 6:52:09 AM

You are an America-hater/basher. Not because you are pointing out America is not perfect, but for pretending other countries are. This is not an American problem, it is a human problem. Power corrupts everywhere and in every culture. Especially when alcohol is involved.

5/17/2008 9:36:57 AM

Quote :

"Not because you are pointing out America is not perfect, but for pretending other countries are. "

Really? Maybe some reading lessons are in order?

Quote :

"The article sounded like it was about a police force in South America or in an Arab country."

5/17/2008 9:41:37 AM

5/17/2008 11:47:40 AM

It's National Police Week in DC. It's been interesting watching cop cars and motorcycles from out of state (out of District?)--e.g. Texas and Florida--use their blue lights and sirens to drive through traffic and red lights.

5/17/2008 12:15:02 PM

Quote :

"The article sounded like it was about a police force in South America or in an Arab country."

As if police forces in Europe, Asia, or North America do not suffer these same horrific problems.

5/17/2008 3:00:36 PM

the UK has amazing police. really nice.

5/17/2008 5:55:47 PM

I think police should be community helpers if they're not working on a specific case right at the moment. Like if someone has a flat tire and they need help changing it, a policeman should be able to help. Put those mother fuckers to work.

I did actually see a cop helping push a car off the road one time when it broke down. That was the nicest thing I have ever seen a cop do.

5/17/2008 6:34:22 PM

I think that any police officer who is convicted of abusing his authority should be put to death immediately. Same goes for politicians

5/17/2008 8:36:54 PM

I think that some T-Dubbers shouldn't be allowed to have opinions.

God help us if any of you guys end up as judges.

5/17/2008 8:46:12 PM

^^^^yea, you ever watch the british version of the car chases, the cops are just like "mate, do you realize you just robbed that bank, please step out of your car"
here they drag you out of the car, taze you, and give you a few knees to the back of the head.

5/17/2008 8:55:41 PM

What's the next thread going to be - Wet Water?

5/17/2008 9:35:34 PM

ramos and compean are crying in a jail cell somewhere

5/17/2008 11:22:50 PM

Quote :

"Indicted Chicago cop describes 'creative writing' in arrest reports Keith Herrera, a Chicago police officer, tells CBS News that he routinely engaged in "creative writing" that was designed to bolster the cases against those he and other members of the Special Operations Section arrested in high-crime areas. Herrera, 30, says his superiors were aware of some of the illegal activities that led prosecutors to charge members of the elite unit with armed robbery, kidnapping and other serious crimes. "I say I was doin' my job. I went to work every day, put my star on, put my gun on and got the bad guys off the street," Herrera, who has been indicted, tells 60 Minutes. "I was doing my job and I was told I was doing a good job." "

Trampling civil liberties is now called 'creative writing'

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

6/2/2008 10:54:24 AM

^ Ha. Does that give y'all more respect for my major?

6/2/2008 10:57:46 AM

I was at a party this weekend and toward the end of the night two guys who wondered off for a bit came back with someone's grill they stole. Think it was one of the neighbors down the street. By this point it was down to like 10 people as it was like 3:30. One of the guys there though was an off duty police officer. So when the two kids started bragging about stealing the grill; I thought they were fucked. But as a strange twist of fate not only did the cop not give a shit; he even paid the kids $5 a piece to take the grill because the guy whose house it was didn't want the stolen grill in his backyard.

I am sure that cop was grilling out last night with his "hot" grill.

6/2/2008 12:45:36 PM

This goes far beyond CPD.

Here's an asshole cop in MO caught on camera acting the goat.

http://www.crapolicious.com/2007/09/22/crapolicious-cop-captured-on-hidden-camera/

Quote :

"You wanna go to jail for some reason I come with!?"

Quote :

"You want me to lock you up and show you I'm right and you're wrong!?"

Quote :

"Don't never take it out on me, don't take it out on a cop, cause we'll ruin your career and life and everything else you got going for you."

Human rights watch issued a report 10 years ago entitled "Shielded from Justice" on the subject of police brutality and misconduct in the United States. In the years since, post 9/11 hysteria has only further eroded police accountability.

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/

Quote :

"Police abuse remains one of the most serious and divisive human rights violations in the United States. The excessive use of force by police officers, including unjustified shootings, severe beatings, fatal chokings, and rough treatment, persists because overwhelming barriers to accountability make it possible for officers who commit human rights violations to escape due punishment and often to repeat their offenses.1 Police or public officials greet each new report of brutality with denials or explain that the act was an aberration, while the administrative and criminal systems that should deter these abuses by holding officers accountable instead virtually guarantee them impunity. This report examines common obstacles to accountability for police abuse in fourteen large cities representing most regions of the nation. The cities examined are: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, Portland, Providence, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Research for this report was conducted over two and a half years, from late 1995 through early 1998. The brutality cases examined, which are set out in detail in chapters on each city, are similar to cases that continue to emerge in headlines and in survivors' complaints. It is important to note, however, that because it is difficult to obtain case information except where there is public scandal and/or prosecution, this reportrelies heavily on cases that have reached public attention; disciplinary action and criminal prosecution are even less common than the cases set out below would suggest. Our investigation found that police brutality is persistent in all of these cities; that systems to deal with abuse have had similar failings in all the cities; and that, in each city examined, complainants face enormous barriers in seeking administrative punishment or criminal prosecution of officers who have committed human rights violations. Despite claims to the contrary from city officials where abuses have become scandals in the media, efforts to make meaningful reforms have fallen short. "

In the course of my routine encounters with policedom, I have encountered a few polite, respectful officers who were willing to harass me about petty bullshit without getting too confrontational about it or treating me like a criminal. However, I've met an equal number of swaggering, in your-face, roid-raging, macho assholes who I have no doubt would have relished tasered the fuck out of me if I had given them the slightest excuse.

As far as I'm concerned, this is basically inevitable. As the Stanford Prison experiment demonstrated, taking an elite fraternity and lionizing them, arming them, "giving" them "authority" to defy conventional norms of acceptable conduct and filling their heads with a bunch nonsense about how they're the "thin blue line" between civilization and barbarism, can only lead to bad things.

I make no distinction here between "good" cops and "bad" cops. Any cop is wearing that uniform because he's willing to surrender his moral judgment to a fundamentally corrupt political process. That badge is a symbol of his willingness to show up and do violence wherever, whenever and against whomever he's told, with no consideration of the justice or injustice of his actions. That's an institution I fundamentally cannot respect, and its one we should not expect to safeguard freedom or justice.

It should be no surprise then that cops don't protect us from shit.

I reiterate points I made in recent threads.

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=527965&page=2

Quote :

"Courts have repeatedly ruled that the police have no obligation whatsoever to protect anybody or their property. If you want protection, you contract with a private firm. That's why private security outnumber pigs by two or three to one. Most of the crime that you and I need protection from is the result of generations of bad government policy. Government systematically punishes, through progressive taxation, those people who engage in honest, productive enterprise. Meanwhile, broken families, laziness, short-sightedness, irresponsibility, indulgence and a sense of entitlement are all subsidized by a vast system of government handouts. It is the permanent, dependent underclass thus created, that threatens the safety and property of productive citizens, not other productive citizens."

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=528022

Quote :

"As previously stated, criminals tend to have very high rates of time preference, they are very present-oriented. The prospect of facing an armed victim, being an immediate threat, is a potent deterrent to crime. In comparison, the remote statistical chance of being arrested at some indeterminate point in the future and the even less likely chance of being convicted and sent to prison even farther in the future, is going to have a vanishingly small deterrent value on the target population. Thus, disarming citizens and ramping up police efforts against crime is only going to accelerate the downward spiral."

Quote :

"If you look at the incentives it does make a perverse sort of sense. If police do a good job of preventing, deterring and punishing crime they put themselves out of a job. Their incentive is to focus on ineffectual bullshit that justifies large budgets and large staffs but still leaves private criminals free to terrorize the populace, so that they'll clamor for even more ineffectual and overbearing police measures."

The final point can be illustrated by comparing the safety of a shopping mall, where security is handled by private professionals and a public park, where you have to rely on police for protection. The much denigrated "mall cop" (not really a cop at all), as an employees of the landlord, who's business it is to rent floorspace, to merchants who need customers, who want to feel safe, has a strong incentive to keep things orderly and safe without being intimidating or overbearing towards the customers. I remember one time, shortly after I turned eighteen, I was hanging out at a mall with some of my still-underage friends who wanted to step out and have a smoke. So we're standing there outside the mall, around behind a corner of building to be out of view, just hanging out and shooting the breeze, and one of the security guards comes out. He just introduced himself and proceeded to make polite small talk until we got uncomfortable enough with his presence that my friends put out their cigarettes and we went back inside. That's a difference of night and day in comparison to how a "peace officer" would have handled things.

The simple fact is we'd all be a lot better off instantly if we simply disbanded every law enforcement agency right now and replaced them with nothing. All the institutions to maintain an orderly and peaceful society without law enforcement exist and are well established. They've already had to take up the slack and keep things running for the last several generations even in the face of the corrupt, slow, incompetent, overbearing and abusive criminal justice system. We already have private courts, private investigators, private security, credit bureaus, repo-agencies, bounty hunters and a whole host of other institutions that do the heavy lifting while the police run around being useless, obnoxious cunts.

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 1:42 PM. Reason : heh]

6/2/2008 1:38:26 PM

^ Sounds good to me. However, don't count on your property being safe after that shift. Disbanding the police would greatly embolden non-capitalist anarchists. Punk kids would set new shoplifting and squatting records.

6/2/2008 1:57:22 PM

They'd have a hard time matching the police for property theft and destruction, even if we don't consider the taxes that fund them.

If you and your buddies want to take my property, you're welcome to try. I think, however, that you overestimate the ease of the task, and underestimate the violence of my reaction to it.




[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 2:04 PM. Reason : ']

6/2/2008 2:00:17 PM

I'm glad you feel that way. I'll happily ally with anarcho-capitalists to smash the state. But we libertarian socialists wouldn't stop there. We'd come for your private property too, sooner or later.

Violence goes both ways. Anyone who shoots at a punk for trying to steal a CD can expect to be shot at in return. If this became common, punks would wear armor. Some already do this at protests. Unfortunately, I suspect libertarians would end up mimicking the oppressive organizations they supposedly oppose in order to protect that sacred property.

Note that anarchists aren't coming for your personal belongings. They respect the right of use. But we'll squat land you supposedly own and help ourselves to the plenty you needlessly guard.

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM. Reason : oh well]

6/2/2008 2:05:02 PM

Megaloman84, how you would address the free rider problem in your world view?

6/2/2008 3:35:43 PM

Well certainly not by trying to get 300 million people to try and agree on what constitutes good law and trying to get them all to remain vigilant and insure that interest groups and legislators don't sneak something past them.

If you want a more specific answer you'll have to try asking a more specific question.

6/2/2008 3:43:20 PM

Well, since the thread is talking about civil service, let's start there. Let's say that a town decides to disband their fire department, leaving individuals to hire their own security firms to provide law and order. Some of the citizens decide to establish a private fire brigade, contributing funds to purchase fire engines and volunteering time to stand duty. Yet only two thirds of the population decides to contribute. What do you do if a fire breaks out at a free rider's home? You could simply abandon them, letting their house burn to the ground, but allowing a fire to go uncontrolled is going to create an even greater threat to the community at large. However, putting out the fire only rewards the free rider for not contributing to the common good.

You could apply a similar argument to the police, the army, or any other "public good."

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 4:06 PM. Reason : public good reference]

6/2/2008 4:06:26 PM

First of all, fire protection is not a public good. Every building that can burn down is owned by someone. That someone has an incentive not to let it burn down. This will presumably induce them to subscribe to a fire protection service. If it does not, that's their problem, or possibly their insurance company's if they want home owner's insurance. The extra premiums paid by someone who refuses to purchase protection, or the inability to get any insurance at all from reputable firms, should be enough to get the really recalcitrant ones to pay. If there are a few crazy hermits who still don't want fire protection I'd say that that's their right.

The idea that letting someone's home burn down is a threat to others is ridiculous. A private fire department could easily respond to the site of a fire where the home owner doesn't have a subscription plan, and is not willing to pay for services rendered on the spot, and simply stand by to insure that the fire doesn't spread onto his neighbors', property, assuming they've paid for protection.

6/2/2008 4:27:22 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1871_Great_Chicago_Fire

tell that to these people

6/2/2008 4:29:22 PM

Wait, is that an argument for government fire departments?

From your link.

Quote :

"The city's fire department did not receive the first alarm until 9:40 p.m., when a fire alarm was pulled at a pharmacy. The fire department was alerted when the fire was still small, but the guard on duty did not respond as he thought that the glow in the sky was from the smoldering flames of a fire the day before.[citation needed] When the blaze got bigger, the guard realized that there actually was a new fire and sent firefighters, but in the wrong direction."

I love arguments of the form.

We had the government and something bad happened.

Therefore we need the government or something bad will happen.

6/2/2008 4:34:41 PM

Quote :

"A private fire department could easily respond to the site of a fire where the home owner doesn't have a subscription plan, and is not willing to pay for services rendered on the spot, and simply stand by to insure that the fire doesn't spread onto his neighbors', property, assuming they've paid for protection."

And here libertarian socialist and anarcho-capitalist part ways. If your system encourages people to stand around watching a building burn down when they could put out the fire, it's a stupid system. Capitalism does similarly inefficient things constantly.

6/2/2008 4:36:37 PM

So it took them 40 minutes to react to a fire. Keep in mind this is about 140 years ago. Response time is much better now.

I gladly pay for social services that save lives, that's what the government is for.

I suggest you go start your own little anarchist commune if you don't like living in the system.

6/2/2008 4:37:34 PM

Quote :

"The idea that letting someone's home burn down is a threat to others is ridiculous. A private fire department could easily respond to the site of a fire where the home owner doesn't have a subscription plan, and is not willing to pay for services rendered on the spot, and simply stand by to insure that the fire doesn't spread onto his neighbors', property, assuming they've paid for protection."

No offense, but I think your assumption is a bit too optimistic. Sure, that might work in a rural or suburban setting where you have vast spaces of emptiness between properties. What happens if the properties are against a wooded area or in a dense, urban environment? Simply letting a property burn can easily lead to the destruction of an entire town.

There are plenty of reasons a person might not have fire insurance, for the same reason that people may not purchase any sort of insurance in general. Perhaps they've fallen on hard times and can't afford it for a few months. Maybe they let it lapse out of negligence. Perhaps they're just that cheap and are willing to gamble. Maybe they're just crazy. Yet that doesn't make their burning house any less of a threat to their neighbors.

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 4:47 PM. Reason : .]

6/2/2008 4:46:00 PM

Quote :

"I gladly pay for social services that save lives, that's what the government is for."

Why not create similar institutions without the violence backing them up?

6/2/2008 4:46:44 PM

Quote :

" If your system encourages people to stand around watching a building burn down when they could put out the fire, it's a stupid system. Capitalism does similarly inefficient things constantly."

The point isn't that this is what would happen, its that this is what would happen, if you were dumb. Far from encouraging such an outcome, the great thing about capitalism is that discourages people from being dumb by making them bear the consequences of their mistakes. It's not perfect, people are people, so they're going to screw up and do dumb shit on a fairly regular basis, but at least there's an incentive not to.

Socialism not only has no incentive, it has no way to rationally determine whether the shit you do is dumb or not. It's like flailing around in the dark.

Quote :

"I gladly pay for social services that save lives"

So would I. What I object to is being forced to pay certain providers for services who are corrupt, incompetent and are permitted to forcefully exclude others from competing for my business.

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 4:48 PM. Reason : ,]

6/2/2008 4:47:21 PM

Quote :

" So would I. What I object to is being forced to pay certain providers for services who are corrupt, incompetent and are permitted to forcefully exclude others from competing for my business. "

Oh okay, in that case I want to live in Utopia as well. Unfortunately I live in the real world and try to improve it by making realistic suggestions instead of saying "WHY YOU POINT A GUN AT MY HEAD FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT PROTECTION HUH?!!?!?" When that is not the case at all.

6/2/2008 4:50:05 PM

Quote :

"Socialism not only has no incentive, it has no way to rationally determine whether the shit you do is dumb or not. It's like flailing around in the dark."

How so? Use a system based on scientific principles to provide for everyone. We have the productive capacity. A market won't tell you how to make an efficient engine or distribution scheme. It might reward you if get it right, but the design is based on measurable physical properties.

6/2/2008 4:52:48 PM

Is not part of the tolerance among the common people of the italian mafia in the early 20th century was partly due to its function as a private policing force. From my understanding besides the well known criminal activities; the mafia provided protection and safeguarded many poor underprivileged Italian Americans who were all but ignored by the establishment.

6/2/2008 5:30:18 PM

Quote :

"Anyone who shoots at a punk for trying to steal a CD..."

I think you're being a little melodramatic. If I caught you breaking into my house, certainly, I'd try to kill you. If I caught you breaking into my vehicle, I'd administer a severe beatdown. If you got caught shoplifting in an anarcho-capitalist society, you'd probably just have your retail privileges revoked. Storekeepers would probably link their camera systems into commercially accessible face and gait recognition databases to identify known thieves. It'd be hard to make a career out of shoplifting if you get escorted to the exit any time you try and enter a retail establishment.

Squatting is equally problematic for you. We can thank the coca-cola corporation for giving us the solution to hippy infestations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ftGUG7GRLE

If you're absolutely determined to steal from capitalists, you're going to run into problems. However, the difference between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists is that we'd be perfectly content to let you do your own thing as long as you don't bother us. If a bunch of you wanted to go in on some land together and get your syndicalism on, we wouldn't come after you trying to collect taxes or enforce bullshit laws like the government does now. You, on the other hand, would be so bothered if someone, somewhere was practicing consensual selfishness with another, that you'd stick your nose in and try to force them to stop, just like the government does now.

It makes sense really, even voluntary socialism would offer people such a miserable, spartan existence that it would be hard to see very many people choosing it of their own accord. You have to force it on people or it's simply a non-starter.

More on the economics when I have time.

6/2/2008 10:27:12 PM

I'm being melodramatic? You're the one who emphasized the violence of your reaction to property crimes. What kind of response were you expecting? The more complete description does sound somewhat better. Anarcho-capitalism would beat what we've got now.

As for coexistence after the revolution, I think it might be possible. Libertarian socialists wouldn't necessarily harass anarcho-capitalists. It would depend on the exact circumstances. If y'all monopolized (i.e. owned) too many resources, we'd definitely attempt to liberate them and/or convert you to socialism. If workers suffered oppression similar to under state capitalism and wanted change, we'd absolutely aid our comrades.

On the other hand, if the anarcho-capitalist areas turned prosperous and at least vaguely egalitarian, I think we would be able to cooperate. Any sort of trading arrangement would be difficult, but I suspect human ingenuity would prevail. More than anything else, unrestricted movement would foster peaceful relations. Those who felt stifled by socialism would travel to anacho-capitalist areas, while those who felt burdened by wage slavery would flee to the communes. I'm not entirely pessimistic.

As for force and scarcity being required, I strongly disagree. Thanks to modern technology, we have a wealth of physical productivity in North America. Look at the numbers. Scientific administration of this abundance would provide for everyone. The outdated price system only hinders this distribution. The problem, as I'm sure you'll quickly point out, is human motivation. Luckily for anarchists, the psychological literature rejects profit as the best incentive. In experiments, social and mental factors matter more. Significant evidence suggests that humans perform best when doing work they believe to have innate value.

6/2/2008 10:58:38 PM

Quote :

"Significant evidence suggests that humans perform best when doing work they believe to have innate value."

Like money?

6/2/2008 11:02:34 PM

One of the problems i see with an anarcho-capitalist society is it would lead to the formation of a bunch of mafioso type organizations. Honestly as much as i'd like the gov't staying the fuck out of my business i really wouldn't want to live in a society in which the strongest push others to their will or the richest pays a bunch of meat-heads to enforce their interests.

i'd honestly support a technocracy before an anarcho-capitalists society.

6/2/2008 11:33:02 PM

No, specifically not like money. If you're doing something for money, that suggests it doesn't have any (or enough) innate value. Various studies demonstrate this. See the following links:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI4.html

http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/cont_reward.html

I'll quote from the last one:

Quote :

"Tangible extrinsic rewards reliably undermine intrinsic motivation under most circumstances, and, interestingly the most detrimental reward contingency involves giving rewards as a direct function of people's performance. Those who perform best get the most rewards and those who perform less well get less (or no) rewards. This contingency, which is perhaps the one most often used in life, seems to be the one that is most detrimental to the motivation, performance, and well-being of the individuals subjected to it."

6/2/2008 11:49:17 PM

I work for blowjobs!

6/3/2008 12:08:10 AM

Quote :

"A market won't tell you how to make an efficient engine or distribution scheme. It might reward you if get it right, but the design is based on measurable physical properties."

A socialist might be able to apply engineering principles to create an efficient engine, but a socialist would have no way of knowing whether the engine is more useful than the resources that go into making it and if not, which of the myriad of other ways in which those resources could be employed would provide the most value. Do you make an engine out of that steel, or do you make a cookstove, or a dozen bicycles? There are an infinite number of uses that could be thought up for the same raw materials. Under capitalism, the problem is relatively simple, entrepreneurs look for ways to make a profit by producing goods and services that people will buy for more than it costs to buy the various inputs that are required to produce them. The prices of consumer goods reflect the needs and desires of consumers. The prices of raw materials and labor reflect the value of the alternate uses to which they can be put. Put it all together and you have a rational and efficient way to allocate scarce resources. Socialism doesn't have any mechanism for rationally deciding between different ways to allocate resources. This is a far more fundamental flaw than the problem of incentive, which is formidable in its own right.

6/3/2008 3:59:54 AM

all you tards need to realize that no single guiding principle will work in real society. a fluid, slowly shifting economic and governmental pairing is what ends up with stability. Teetering over time between socialism and libertarianism, between regulated and open market capitalism as society demands those shifts.

Is it perfect? No. Are people perfect? Hell no, they are stupid as mud.

6/3/2008 5:38:48 AM

Quote :

"Oh okay, in that case I want to live in Utopia as well."

Actually, you do. Statism is utopian, if you're still willing to keep trying it after thousands of years of consistent failure to deliver on what it promises. Kings, councilmen, senators, magistrates, lords, public servants, and a host of other lowlifes have been promising us something for nothing since the dawn of civilization. They have yet to deliver anything but misery and ruin.

Anarcho-capitalism is the theory that you have to create what you want, there are no shortcuts, there are no free rides. You can't simply offload responsibility onto some mystical authority figure. You have to stand up and take responsibility for yourself, your wellbeing, your security, your family, etc... Nobody is going to magically take care of your business for you. If you live in a society large enough to permit advanced division of labor, than you can use trade through the price system to make yourself a lot more productive and cooperate with other people to better provide for everyone's needs. How is that utopian?

Quote :

"i really wouldn't want to live in a society in which the strongest push others to their will "

If someone is stronger than you and trying to push you around, hire protection. If you are being threatened without cause there will be someone willing to protect you for a modest fee. If you want to go around threatening people, you won't be able to easily hire your own backup because being belligerent creates trouble. You would be a poor risk for anyone who agreed to back you up. The preponderance of force will therefore fall to the peaceful, productive citizens rather than the trouble makers.

Quote :

"or the richest pays a bunch of meat-heads to enforce their interests."

Rich people can't indiscriminately wage war on society because that costs a lot of money and doesn't really yield returns. If you're paying thugs to help you rip people off, you're going to find yourself isolated, under siege and drained of resources in short order.

Remember, we're talking about a whole society of people who have decided that they're no longer going to tolerate predation from their "government" and have shrugged it off. What makes you think they'd tolerate some pissant upstart trying to pull the same shit?

If someone is interested in profit, they'd have more than enough opportunities to profit by creating something of value and exchanging it on the marketplace.

6/3/2008 12:06:25 PM

^ tell that to these guys

6/3/2008 12:16:12 PM

They're able to thrive in a shadowy underworld fueled by enormous black-market profits created by government prohibition of victimless crimes, drugs, gambling, prostitution etc... They don't face the censure of their victims because they lurk in the shadows to mitigate the high transaction costs and cost of information created by government crackdowns. People have to step into their world in order to do business s with them. When things go south, neither party has recourse to open, peaceful means of dispute resolution. That's why violence inevitably results.

If there were no government, that would not be a profitable way to do business, since people would prefer to patronize businesses that operate openly and maintain a reputation for quality and not breaking their customers' kneecaps, even when they're shopping for the satisfaction of their vices.

6/3/2008 12:25:16 PM

Quote :

"Put it all together and you have a rational and efficient way to allocate scarce resources."

Well, there's the point of disagreement. I say we're past scarcity, at least in North America. We have a surplus of the essentials and productive capacity to create more still. It's the price system that prevents this. Just last night on the radio I heard about the food crisis. Despite the supposed shortage, farmers refuse to grow more, because that would lower prices. That's not a rational or efficient system.

Going past the theory, I judge our current form of capitalism by its results. We have widespread waste and gross inequality. Single individuals control as much resources as small states. How does anarcho-capitalism address this problem? Would Bill Gates and company be accepted as private kings? Would ownership be reset to zero to account for the state's long history of influence?

[Edited on June 3, 2008 at 12:43 PM. Reason : zero]

6/3/2008 12:42:58 PM