Question about fundamental societal construction

[eberetta1]

I prefer option one. I cannot trust option 2 to work.

[wufwugy]

I prefer option one. I cannot trust option 2 to work.

Are you saying you trust everybody you don't know more than you trust yourself, your friends, your family, your acquaintances, and your community?

Option 1 means the decision-makers for people are greatly dispersed onto others. So things that are legal or illegal for you are created almost entirely by people who don't know you and so separate from you that they almost couldn't care less. Option 2 means that the closer things are to you, the more power they hold in your life. Option 1 means much power is held over you from afar

I think people put way too much faith into the power of their bi-yearly vote.

[CoccoBill]

Are you saying you trust everybody you don't know more than you trust yourself, your friends, your family, your acquaintances, and your community?

I call red herring.

I think most people wouldn't trust a police force they employ through craigslist. When the unknown police force adheres to a strict code of conduct set by people the person voted for, are held responsible and if needed punished for their actions, and the system has been shown to work over a few centuries, they might answer differently. Add "in theory" or "most of the time" tags where suitable, but that's the basic gist of it.

And before you start showing examples of the failings of the US police forces, that's just one example from many. There are plenty of examples that they can and do operate smoothly.

[wufwugy]

I call red herring.

I think most people wouldn't trust a police force they employ through craigslist. When the unknown police force adheres to a strict code of conduct set by people the person voted for, are held responsible and if needed punished for their actions, and the system has been shown to work over a few centuries, they might answer differently. Add "in theory" or "most of the time" tags where suitable, but that's the basic gist of it.

And before you start showing examples of the failings of the US police forces, that's just one example from many. There are plenty of examples that they can and do operate smoothly.

im not sure what youre getting at. people dont pick insurance companies over craigslist. private security and arbitration is basically insurance

police hasnt been proven to work. if anything, it has been "proven" to not work since crime is associated more with the intervention of the monopoly on violence

[CoccoBill]

im not sure what youre getting at. people dont pick insurance companies over craigslist. private security and arbitration is basically insurance

police hasnt been proven to work. if anything, it has been "proven" to not work since crime is associated more with the intervention of the monopoly on violence

Exactly, why don't people pick insurance companies over craigslist? Is it perhaps because you can't trust them to operate according to a code of conduct and no one is overseeing their operations?

1. A member of the community is robbed because he doesn't have the physical nor economical means to protect himself.
2. People around him decide they'll join together to protect the weak members, since they realize the same could happen to them or someone they care about.
3. ...
4. Police force

There's plenty of studies showing increasing police presence in an area decreases crime. There's nothing inherently different between safety provided by a police force or an angry local mob, apart from the police force being more organized, reliable and following a set of rules.

[wufwugy]

Exactly, why don't people pick insurance companies over craigslist? Is it perhaps because you can't trust them to operate according to a code of conduct and no one is overseeing their operations?

1. A member of the community is robbed because he doesn't have the physical nor economical means to protect himself.
2. People around him decide they'll join together to protect the weak members, since they realize the same could happen to them or someone they care about.
3. ...
4. Police force

There's plenty of studies showing increasing police presence in an area decreases crime. There's nothing inherently different between safety provided by a police force or an angry local mob, apart from the police force being more organized, reliable and following a set of rules.

I don't know what you're getting at. There is very little market for security since the government monopolizes most of it

You're euphemizing what you support and dysphemizing what you don't. The dichotomy is not "organized reliable rule following police" versus "angry mobs"

Have you considered some of the points for why markets more effectively organize societies than states?

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't know what you're getting at. There is very little market for security since the government monopolizes most of it

There's very little market without security.

[CoccoBill]

I don't know what you're getting at. There is very little market for security since the government monopolizes most of it

You're euphemizing what you support and dysphemizing what you don't. The dichotomy is not "organized reliable rule following police" versus "angry mobs"

Have you considered some of the points for why markets more effectively organize societies than states?

You say that as if that's a bad thing, that's what I'm getting at. There are plenty of examples around the world and from history when violence hasn't been monopolized. I'm quite happy to live in a country and era where it is.

I think you're doing the exact same. You're equating every organized, trained and supervised security force with corruption and oppression, and untrained armed vigilante mobs with your friendly local neighborhood patrols.

Have you stopped beating your wife? No, I haven't seen any actual evidence showing what you claim, just theories based on what I think are false premises. You skipped my question, why don't people buy insurance off craigslist?

I think the core problem here is you're disillusioned with your current government and attribute all that's evil in the world to it. What you fail to see IMO is that a government is an inevitable outcome of a society. It's just a management structure. On a smaller scale, a city council is a government, or the town elder. Likewise with the board of directors or the CEO. Are you saying all forms of management and structure are bad and if not, at what point exactly do they all become incompetent?