Keene Police Take Car Off Private Property

Yes, I think they do themselves a disservice by not describing the nature of their actions. Perhaps the car was stolen, for example, and was going to be returned to the rightful owner.

This would help the citizens (who the police supposedly work for, remember?) understand when police really are working to protect them, and when there truly is something to object to.

I generally agree with Shane on this one. The original assumption should have been neutral and the cop outright questioned as to the goings on. If the officer was flagged down and ignored you I'd recommend calling the department, asking about the incident and then letting them know the officer ignored you as Shane mentioned above. If assumptions are made spur of the moment and are recognized as such later I'd recommend in the future editing the comments out or clearly declaring that it was inappropriate in the post.

To Shane if you are reading this. I understand that some of these Keeniacs and their behaviors can be frustrating. However, it is in all our benefit if you keep as professional as possible in your dealings with them just as you would like them to act toward you. There is no reason to use ad hominem attacks or condemn "the group." There are always multiple ways of attacking an issue. Some of these FSP members choose to make particular points by performing guerrilla gardening (it seems you may misunderstand the point of that exercise, not that I necessary believe the point will be understood or internalized by any of those intended) or performing the copwatch. I'd recommend an equal amount of effort spent in open dialog and involvement with local government and residents regarding a community garden / food co-op as well as a FSP crime watch. I would hope everyone would recognize that all peaceful means of change play a role in enacting that change. Some are more effective than others. Some are purely symbolic and may only be useful in stirring the base. Each person needs to find out what works best for them. So long as everyone involved is professional, respectful and peaceful we will all be better off and more likely to succeed in our respective goals.

Understood. Just wanted to know what had happened given the tone and seriousness of the removed part.

I agree it deserves a specific addressing and not directly related to the incident.

the article has been updated and a portion of Shane’s response was cut

Yes it appears that the peace officer's vulgar language has been removed from the public forum.

that’s the law

Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. – Martin Luther King Jr.

If you had actually asked the cop, instead of presuming he or she should have come over to you to explain themselves, then you would know.

If you and your staff don't want these questions being raised, then you should be as open as possible from the get go. Yes, even to the point of volunteering information. Otherwise, don't be surprised and offended when these questions are asked. If you truly are a public servant, then you should have nothing to hide and it shouldn't be a problem. If what you are doing is right, then you should be glad that your actions are being recorded so you can proudly say "Yes, we had a good reason for our actions and our system is just and effective". I understand that the officer wasn't asked, but I also saw no allegations in the video that he was actively concealing information. I cannot speak to the maker's true intentions, but the point I got from it was just to publicly ask the question "why?". Which we as taxpayers should have a right to ask if this is a free country shouldn't we? I don't see a real conflict here, just a misunderstanding of intentions.

blowing through a stop sign (and endangering people by doing so)

Interesting. So what damage was caused to these victims?

that Shane, what a guy. Now if he'd just stop arresting peaceful people.

Perhaps I'm asking too much. It might be too difficult. It's tough NOT arresting rapists and thieves and instead busting people for planting in the garden and sicking the boy thugs on people standing in a courtroom.

I'm sure if we got rid of the violence the state perpetrates, there still would be rape and murder. But hey, at least we'd have less violence. Government perpetrates theft and violence against me all the time (Apr. 15 anyone?), but I've never been attacked by a rapist or murderer.

Amazed, are you capable of considering the substance of an idea, or only of sarcastically deconstructing your own straw men?

Let's start with this: Why do you believe it is okay to extort money from people by threatening to bring men with guns in to kick them out of their house? I assume you have some moral belief. How is it that you consider this form of theft moral? Please try to give a substantive, not a sarcastic answer.

Amazed: Maybe if you listened to or read The Market For Liberty — available on this very website, you wouldn't have to ask these questions.

But at least you're asking — and with a minimum of sarcasm to boot. That's something new.

Hope, it springs eternal.

Perhaps this is unnecessary, but I want to clarify that I meant to say it is not always immoral to respond to force with force. It certainly can be, especially if inordinate or unnecessary force is used. It is always immoral to initiate force however. Just wanted to clear that up .

I think it also bears pointing out that in a free society, individuals and institutions could not externalize the costs of their actions as the State does today. With this said, any actions they take would be at their own fiscal risk, which would encourage co-operation in instances where disputes arise. Why? Because a.) it's cheaper and isn't a waste of resources and b.) the agencies involved have a marketing opportunity in that the way they handle such incidents would attract more consumers.

Amazed,

I don't think you're being snarky at all, I find your questions quite thoughtful, and appreciate them.

Please allow me to attempt to summarize your points, and respond to them. If I missed any of your concerns, please let me know.

– What if the perpetrator refuses to acknowledge an agreement regarding his restitution?

Ultimately, he must be forced to pay restitution. Again, a forceful response to violence is very different than the initiation of violence. The two interested parties will most likely be the defense agencies of the victim, and of the perpetrator. This part is similar to some extent with the court system today, actually, when it deals with violent crime — the perp will be forced to pay the agreed penalty regardless of his personal agreement with it. A couple differences would likely include a greater emphasis on restitution, and the ability of the victim to drop charges if they so choose. More importantly, of course, the system would not be funded by force against innocents, but by willing subscribers.

– Does this require the victim and the perpetrator to work out a restitution plan?

It does not, and as you say, there are many cases in which the perp may be unrepentant. If they are able to work out an agreement, however, it would certainly be respected.

– Wouldn't people hire a defense agency who will fight for them regardless of justice, and not abide by the rulings of mutually agreed upon arbiters?

First, I want to clear one thing up: The "security agencies" I speak of are not hired at the time a crime is committed, but are subscribed to on a regular basis, and would likely have beat officers, etc, to help provide safety to their customers.

Now, regarding the substance of your objection, suppose a person hired a "defense" agency which disregarded justice entirely, and fought for their customers at any cost. Such an agency would really be no different than an armed group of thugs who promise to protect you, or a gang, right? Any such gangs would be fighting with each other nonstop, just as gangs do today, because they would have no mutual agreements or system of justice. It would be very expensive to fund such a group, would open yourself up to violence, just as gang membership does today, and it would carry the same negative moral and social stigmas.

Now, suppose that a protection agency was just, developing mutually agreed upon "laws" with other responsible agencies, and series of mutually agreed upon courts of arbitration to settle disputes. Such an agency would be much less prone to violence, and therefore much less expensive, and would have much safer customers and employees.

I think most people, including me, would prefer to subscribe to the second kind of agency, rather than the first, for the simple reason that most people want justice and protection, not to join a gang. Thus, because these justice based protection agencies would have the funding of the majority of the populace, they would be far more powerful than any gangs fighting it out in the street. Of course, the gangs of today are funded mainly by drug money, so they would already be out of business …

– Wouldn't the rich get off by hiring more guns?

Not at all. The collective economic power of the populace is far greater than any one rich guy. It's the same reason if Bill Gates were arrested, it wouldn't be a reasonable option for him to start a war with the U.S. Army.

– Wouldn't the rich get off by bribing the court of arbitration?

Certainly not. If any court of arbitration gave in to bribery, it would lose its reputation for fairness and unbiased justice, which is all it has. It would loose all of the defense agencies as customers, since any reliance by one of these agencies on what is seen as an unfair court would be the death knell of the company — people would switch to an agency which they believe could guarantee them a fair shake, even against Mr. Gates.

Indeed courts of arbitration would be competing to appear the very most fair and unbiased — a situation very different from the unfair justice system we have today.

– What if a person has no money at all? How will they hire a defense agency?

We'll leave aside the point, for the time being, that a poor man has not much chance of justice in our current system anyway.

I think many agencies would have a policy of providing services for free to the truly poor. I would certainly choose such an agency, since I have an interest in overall justice and security in my community, not just for myself. Also, agencies would likely charge less for less wealthy clients, and more for more wealthy clients, since wealthy clients are more likely targets for thieves and kidnappers, and have resources to protect — and if the agency is offering insurance, as I am sure many would, more to replace.

I do think charity serves a purpose. I have read Dickens, and it must be remembered that he was a fiction author. There have been a great many very successful charitable efforts in our history. Take a look at our early medical system, for example, where many churches offered clinics which would provide free medical care to those in need. Doctors often worked there for $5 an hour or less. Compare that to our current system, so overburdened by regulations and government corporatism, that it is hard to imagine how it could be more inefficient or expensive. It is only in those few areas where choice still exists, such as Lasik and cosmetic surgery, that prices come down, and quality improves — as it does in all free areas of the economy. Furthermore, it should be noted that our current policies, including the "war on poverty" and especially the "war on drugs" have if anything perpetuated poverty in our country.

These programs make things worse not better, and moreover, law enforcement in our country often serves to oppress the poor and minority races, not help them.

Finally, it should be noted that the absence of the huge government burdens on society would provide the greatest ladder out of poverty. Eliminate burdensome regulations and taxation, and businesses would spring up everywhere. Furthermore, people would have more to donate to charity in this scenario, and more time to volunteer, if nearly half their time and money were no longer being used to fund government, and if so many currently prohibited innovations were allowed to occur.

I believe the poor should be helped — I do so with my own money (and time when I can), encourage others to do so with their money and time, and choose to do business with those who do so with their money and time. It is not a valid alternative, however, to mug or enslave others in order to do so.

Somalia has had central government, and now has a number of violent wannabe governments vying for control. It is certainly nothing close to a peaceful, intentional attempt at a voluntary society, but is rather the chaotic fracturing and implosion of coercive government.

The transition to a voluntary society would not be chaotic, and certainly should not be violent. In my view the only thing that would be really necessary would be to allow people who want to choose an alternative to government provided services, to opt out of taxes for those services, and hire a different firm. Also, the government would have to stop prosecuting victim-less crimes.

Perhaps, I should frame my former question in a slightly less accusatory way, and please do respond, as I continue to enjoy responding to your questions: Do you believe it is okay to extort money from people by threatening to bring men with guns in to kick them out of their house if they do not pay? I assume you have some moral belief. Do you consider this form of theft moral, and if so, why?

Amazed,

Here's the link to the free audiobook for "for a new liberty", if you're interested: http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&I….

I don't agree with every last thing in the book, but I do think it's quite good. I think "the market for liberty" was posted earlier. Again, not being an atheist for example, I cannot endorse everything in that book either, but it does have some excellent ideas regarding the justice system in a free society.