site banner
ymeskhout  7mo ago (text post)   2430 thread views

The Bailey Podcast E034: An Unhinged Conversation on Policing

Listen on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Podcasts, Podcast Addict, and RSS.

In this episode, an authoritarian and some anarchist(s) have an unhinged conversation about policing.

Participants: Yassine, Kulak, & Hoffmeister25 [Note: the latter's voice has been modified to protect him from the progressive nanny state's enforcement agents.]

Links:

About the Daniel Penny Situation (Hoffmeister25)

Posse comitatus (Wikipedia)

Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State or Federal Prison (BJS 1997)

The Iron Rule (Anarchonomicon)

Eleven Magic Words (Yassine Meskhout)

Blackstone's ratio (Wikipedia)

Halfway To Prison Abolition (Yassine Meskhout)

Defunding My Mistake (Yassine Meskhout)

Recorded 2023-09-16 | Uploaded 2023-09-25

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Disagree with Kulak's position. crime would surge under his style of policing, especially organized crime. Criminals fear govt. enforcement far more than private enforcement and is a better deterrent. Governments have unlimited resources, including to detain criminals for a long time or forever, whereas bounty hunters and other private citizens are much more limited. Even if property owners have full discretion to use guns to defend themselves, criminals would still prefer this over more aggressive public policing. An armed citizen is not going to go to the end of the earth to capture a habitual criminal, but a government agency like the FBI which has unlimited resources will. Militias would not work agaisnt crimes in which the criminal goes after distant targets.

An armed citizen is not going to go to the end of the earth to capture a habitual criminal,

Why not if there is a $20k on his head DOA?

You think I’m going to quit my job, drop everything I’ve got going on in my life, and subject myself to considerable physical risk, all for the opportunity to get a one-time payment of $20,000?

Its already a job in our current system for far paltrier payouts and with bounty hunters having far more restrictions on their actions that make the job more dangerous than sniping from 100 feet with a .30 cal rifle.

Presumably the bounty would only be pertinent to the class of professional bounty hunters already equipped and experienced to pursue them. It's similar to when bounties are offered for information, the presumption is that only those already with information will come forward. There's no expectation that random people will drop everything to become amateur sleuths.

Okay, but as I asked during the podcast: If I am the victim of a crime, am I the one who is then responsible for paying the bounty hunter(s) out of my own pocket? Or is that bounty paid by elected state/local officials on my behalf, once I bring the crime to their attention? If I’m on the hook for paying them, this seems like a wretched system that penalizes people financially after they’ve already lost money as a result of being victimized in the first place, and means that only wealthy individuals have any recourse when victimized. If the latter, then how is that not just police with extra steps, as I alleged during the podcast?

I think bounties would generally be issued by judges at some minimum level that private individuals would be able to augment. And victims would have priority claims to the deceased's estate (lol I know most will have little) and private property (criminals may have a surprising amount of jewelry and cars etc).

Yes, but "who will pursue the bounty" is a separate question from "who will fund the bounty". I was only addressing the former. I thought the latter question was totally on point and it's too bad we moved on before @Kulak could answer it.

David Friedman (anarcho-capitalist) has discussed similar ideas before.

His thought was to have insurance agencies. You insure yourself against crime, and the insurance agency would deal with the criminals.

The insurance agencies could have different levels of protection, or different avenues of vengence. In cases where a person from one insurance agency is in conflict with another person with an insurance agency, it would be the insurance agencies negotiating.

To answer: "How is this not just police with extra steps"

Different options within the same geography. Why does that matter? Because one of the main an-cap complaints against government is that it does not face enough competition, and thus you get the typical problems from monopoly suppliers of a good/service (poor quality, high price, etc).

That's an accurate breakdown, but how will people pay for the protection agencies? They can have varying levels of protection available, but if someone is poor enough (or the services are expensive enough) what options do they have?

Charity from wealthier people, or agencies will choose to extend minimum levels of protection for non-payers to prevent a base level of crime.

Or people will fall through the cracks. Just like they do in our current justice system when the police are unwilling to go into a dangerous neighborhood.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats