A city doesnt hire people, those citizens come together and agree on what to do. The citizens dont submit to that company, the company must do the bidding of those citizens, You have it backwards. And if that city lets say, wants that company to kill people from another city, well they have no jurisdiction, are probably going to get killed themselves, and would violate any basic law that any civilized people have. That citizen probably only has legal, and moral, jurisdiction over their own property, and so yeah, if you dont agree to their terms on their property, you can be held liable.
Police enforced by the state, is different than police contracted by citizens. The state grants itself jurisdiction over everyone, valid or not, while those citizens only have jurisdiction over their property.
I would think that the city would hire the police to protect public/communally owned lands and the citizens pay for their own protection or when they call the police. When the police show up in order to do the job they are being hired for they are going to have to force some other person to do something.
Look laws need to change before police will stop enforcing the ones that are on the books. I will refer to a recent run in. Got pulled over by a state trooper for speeding. I agreed that i had been speeding. She said she smelled mj, I once again agreed ( I live in a legal state, and have a mmj card anyway). She asked if I had smoked recently I told her no. She took the mj went back to her car ran my license, insurance, registration. I was more than cooperative. Upon returning to my vehicle she handed me my paperwork and then called her superior about what to do with the mj, he responded by asking how much was there. She said half a baggie full (half-zip) he then told her to give it back to me . Btw she only gave me a warning about speeding and was not happy she had to give me my medicine. Point being.If you don't like the laws being enforced do something about it and change them.
If that is what some community wants to do, have protection for public lands and then let the citizens have more specific protection then sure, if they want to do that I dont see why they cant. Those police could only force someone to do something if there is enough evidence to show some sort of crime was committed however.
Governments, collectively, murdered upwards of 100 million people in the 20th century alone -- and that does NOT include those slaughtered in the states's wars (if memory serves). Most of those 100+ million victims were first disarmed via gun control laws, rendering themselves helpless against the well-armed government employees. Yet there are still people around who defend the total state. It boggles my mind. Surely we can come up with something better than coercive, violent, political government.
Why is there no in-between? Why is it either anarchy or a a "total state"? Do you think private business can't be coercive or violent?
The people grant the state jurisdiction over everyone. The state can be anything people want it to be. I don't think you understand freedom.
It disgusts me that you condone these actions. Police should not force any one to do anything. Police should force people NOT to do things. Not to infringe on the rights of others, not to initiate violence against another human, not to take what isn't theirs (aka taxes)... Because history proves that it is impossible to have any form of state, no matter how limited, that does not rely on violence and force to exist.. Governments have progressed, there is no doubt. We had monarchies and divine right forms of government, dictatorships, socialism, republic's that have turned to democracy, laissez faire... they all suck! why not evolve past the use of force as a people? Why not at least TRY something that you can not prove won't work? Why do you cling so tightly to the status quo and refuse to believe that we are smart enough to leave government behind and better the human race?
If by "people", you mean 51% of a certain population, and they force everyone to do what they want. And to that freedom comment.
Individual freedom is far from "collective freedom" (oxymoron). The rights of the individual are far more important and valuable than some collectivist fantasy that breeds violence and terror.
just because 51 percent of people believe one way does not justify their use of violence to force their way upon the other 49 percent. that is democracy and it is a sickening way to run to society
The "individual" that you love so much can only exist by the graces of the modern state. The state and the individual grew up at the same time.
I bet if you did a real survey you'd find your views regarding the police are in the minority. Therefore, according to your own belief system, yer free to leave.
How are we supposed to live and work together if there are no governments? People naturally form governments. We naturally form a pecking order in any social group. We will never not have governments as long as we want to live together. Inevitably you are going to have people who want to live in the group but dont want to play fair and in that case the others in the group come together and force those who are noncompliant to comply. You say we shouldnt take what's yours n the form of taxes? The taxes are there to benefit YOU. So you can get Social Security and go to the park and have safety from invaders. Why do people act like they dont benefit from taxes at all. Maybe in your life time you dont use every service but I bet if you got paralyzed and couldnt work you'd be applying for disability or are you going to say "Nah ill just waste away?" We need some better systems in place to curtail corruption and abuses but on large part these systems are good ideas. Better were the days you could just exile someone and forget about them.
Educates me on freedom, says that if you disagree with the majority, you must leave. ABANDON THREAD!!!!! Lulz, edits post to cover tracks. Heres what it said I bet if you did a real survey you'd find your views regarding the police are in the minority. Therefore, leave.