Crime and Incarceration In a Stateless Society

At the core of 'the state' is the coercive threat and use of violent force. If 'the state' did not reserve for itself the use of force it would fail. In general people may appear to willingly comply with the requirements of the state but that is either because:

* they would act in that way regardless, (they would generally not want to transgress against other people's property), or
* they would act in a different way to the edicts of 'the state' but do not because of the prospective repercussions, or
* they believe it is moral to comply with the edicts of 'the state'.

'The state' is central to, sets the tone of, modern human society in great part. Because people individually agree that employing the use of force is only moral in defence of self and property and agree that groups of people have no more right to employ force than they do individually, there is an unanswered dichotomy, a dissonance, between the circumstances when an individual can morally use force and when 'the state' makes use of it. There is no moral justification for 'the state' to use force outside of those same perimeters of an individual's moral legitimacy.

When 'the state' employs morally illegitimate violent force it attempts to set itself apart from human morality and instead endows itself with a false morality to break this code. Without violent force at its disposal 'the state' ends. 'The state' is nothing without the use of violent force. 'The state' is nothing but violent force. 'The state' is violence.

This violence, which is 'the state', is the cause of enormous harm that runs through human society as a virus. 'The state' breaks the moral code that is the foundation upon which a harmonious human society should be founded. The overall effect of this violence at the core of 'the state' is that the infection spreads through human society and especially manifests in weak points within the social order.

So how would a stateless society deal with crime? In a fully functional stateless human society crime would be vastly reduced as a result of having taken the use of faux legitimated violence out of the core of society. There would still be crime one can suppose, human nature remains and part of that may be for some to still act immorally, against others and their property, if they can get away with it. So assuming there would remain some crime in a stateless society it would need to be dealt with or the immoral people would simply be unconstrained and encouraged.

The lesson to be understood when accepting the utility of a stateless human society is that: answers to every supposed problem are possible to find and then develop. All the people working toward finding resolutions to the needs of society will develop a plethora of solutions and the best of those will rapidly be widely employed. Further, attempting to predict what these solutions will be is as ridiculous, and likely as inaccurate, as it would have been attempting to describe how society and the economy would appear and function after the abolition of slavery. Slavery was not ceased because a 'slavery-free' future was planed and understood in detail but because the immorality of slavery demanded it was made to end. So it must be demanded that 'the violent state' is made to end too.

I do have many ideas of cause as to how free-market policing and justice would take place in a system offering a level of service and accessibility clearly unobtainable when these functions of human society are usurped and monopolised by 'the state'. I too have ideas for what would replace 'the state' operated penal system. The focus of that would greatly depend on what the free-market demanded and what the free-market judicial system could legitimately find legally sound and therefore moral.

I suppose when people cannot be made, by the threat of violent force, to pay to incarcerate offenders there will be a very different criteria emerge as to what is realistically desirable, such as cost-effective achievable goals for reform, deeper psychoanalytical understanding, life-retraining and so on. People who had to be removed from society because of the danger they presented would need to also be accommodated within a system, but clearly; being faced with an entire population entitled to carry whatsoever means of protection they felt prudent the population of hardened criminals would soon reduce to manageable numbers too.

BadCop Inc - a definition of a police state

In a free society, that is in a stateless society, a free market would exist, for every kind of service, which businesses could address in whatsoever way they considered a competitive manner. Some organisations may offer policing services on a subscription basis, some may work through insurance providers and perhaps, more likely, an unimaginable solution would yet be found to whatever need for policing services existed. That model would then constantly evolve and improve; driven by demand and consumer choice.

A policing organisation that started to behave as we see cops funded via stolen money (taxation) behave, would most likley find their customers rapidly departed to a better provider - I mean, for starters: who wants to pay for a gang of bullies conducting themselves in such a inefficient and costly manner. Such poor public relations would backfire unless, that is, they come to your door and Taser you if you do not pay for their protection racket.

If they did Taser you for not paying it would be clear you needed the services of a better operation who would start their contract with you by getting the ugly Taser and theft cops, BadCop Inc, off your back. A business that intended to force you to place your business with them would need to have a far more subtle method of capturing and retaining your business.

One good way of making you stay with 'BadCop Inc' would be to provide their nasty violence based monopolistic service free of charge. That would have the effect of making it very difficult for widespread competition to get started as they would need to fund their service in some way. Conversely BadCop Inc. could fund their service through a charge made on everything everyone sells including everyone's time they sell at 'work'. BadCop could simultaneously take a slice on the earnings of everything everybody buys too.

But nonetheless people would not be happy. They would quickly realise that BadCop Inc. was just running the mother of all protection rackets. BadCop would have to take more money and provide, monopolistically, more supposed 'benefits' or their 'customers' would realise they were just being enslaved. So BadCop could open schools, to indoctrinate their public from the get-go, allow their 'customers' to vote for who, from a list, the next BadCop boss will be, BadCop could build roads so they can get about and collect their tithe. BadCop could see their friend's business' made money from the enterprise too and could tell these corporate cooperators what to do, such as making sure the papers, radio and TV never tell the enslaved public any sort of truth.

With all this enterprise at their hands BadCop would still have one big problem: it would slowly but surely rot from the inside out and the public would eventually see for themselves its ugliness and its threat. To counter this BadCop Inc. would have to continuously stupefy their enslaved public, make them believe BadCop is essential for humanity, and, whilst keeping their threat of violence always visible, cast themselves and their regime of violence as being utterly legitimate. Make people believe in them. Surround themselves with ceremony, ritual, costumes and badges. Make it a cult. This may be an inefficient and expensive business plan but it is the only viable option if BadCop wants to remain in business.

See also: The Nine Principles of Policing

PS.  Watch the Lego Movie - better: buy it!

Why is there a Corporate-Media Complex Sponsored Police Prison State?

Through subliminal programming embedded in the product of the entire 'corporate-media complex', everything necessary for guided modern living is instilled: not just how to behave in a prison state. Its sum is indoctrination of the finest quality - nothing happens by accident, if it happens you can bet it was planned that way.

So if it is planned this way: what is the plan? The plan cannot just be for a 'police/prison state', as that alone is a pointless, non-productive, endeavour. The fact is: if the police are not held in check, they will enter this cycle of 'absolute power corrupting absolutely'. That alone does not serve a greater purpose, true it will happen if not kept in check, but in isolation it will rapidly become detrimental to the state as a whole. At a critical point, the whole state will be seen as having become unnecessarily onerous whereas it may, in fact, be that only the police have become 'careless' and oppressive to no good aim other than for their supposed own ends and foolish interpretation: of just being a club for bullies and for apparently achieving optimal policing effectiveness.

There must be more to 'the state' allowing its police to be become oppressive than just simply failing to prevent runaway oppressive police standards. To my eyes, the day the 'worm turned' was when in 2007 University of Florida student Andrew Meyer was assaulted and Tasered by campus police whilst he was poignantly questioning Senator John Kerry at an official student Q&A session. It was a disgraceful for such an inappropriate use of force to take place in the presence of this ex-Presidential candidate and for him to have not fiercely reacted at the time, or subsequently, to this violent infringement on legitimate discourse.

I say the ever worsening levels of police oppression and their apparent unaccountability is a symptom of the ever burgeoning tyranny at the core of government. Plato wrote: The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant. The corporate-media complex not only normalises the actions of the police but obfuscates the illegitimacy and corruption that is at the very heart of 'the state'.

Those unsuitable for being subjected to a Taser's electric shock

The list of groups unsuitable for being subjected to Taser type shocking, in all but the most exceptional circumstance, should include:

*the elderly
*children
*people with low body-mass (small, thin and light people)
* pregnant women,
* the known to be mentally ill,
* those suspected to be under the effects of psychotropic drugs,
* the disabled,
* the deaf (if they may not understand the threat),
* people exhibiting signs of 'excited delirium',
* people suffering from or with a history of epileptic seizure,
* people carrying or soaked with flammable and explosive substances,
* people with heart conditions,
* people who are already restrained,
* people who are moving, especially running, or can fall causing injury,
* people who simply refuse to comply, are defiant, with instructions but are not posing a violent threat, 
* And people who can be restrained by an alternative means that presents less risk in the circumstances.

The misuse of Taser is a management and training issue.  If controlled correctly by the issuing authority it is a device that can contribute to good policing.  If badly deployed it is a dangerous erosion of the covenant between the Police and the people.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/mp-fears-tasers-used-on-kids-old-people/story-fn3dxiwe-1226422374526

The Nine Principles of Policing
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/policeNine.php

Fat little worms sitting in a tin - the time is nigh

In matters of 'hacking'.  However hard it looks like this shower will all eventually come tumbling down, police, press and government, I suspect there remains a can of really big juicy worms that will never be opened. That can is tucked away on a top shelf out of view. The one being kicked down the street, for all to wonder and gloat at, is a decoy.

Just one of these fat worms is hinted at with a story in The Sunday Times: ‘Apps spy on phone messages’ (which you cannot access without a subscription).
But the gist of it below is at this link : http://www.theweek.co.uk/daily-briefing/45566/ten-things-you-need-know-today-sunday-26-feb-2012
3. PHONE APPS SPY ON MESSAGES
Companies, including Facebook, are using smartphone apps to spy on users’ phone messages and gather information about their lives. A Sunday Times investigation also found that some apps can access users’ internet history which is transmitted to third party advertisers, while other apps can remotely control a phone’s camera.

My reading of the publication of this item is to set the ground for if and when it comes out that Screws Indigestible has been doing a lot more than just hacking mobile answer-phones or even computer e-mail. It is to say ‘look folks; everybody’s doing this stuff, its not really so bad and scary. It's the new normal’.
See here an idea of what else is possible when actually 'hacking' mobiles: http://eubrainwashing.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-to-phone-hacking-than-accessing.html

But the effect of such revelation still has the potential to be devastating for NI and the Mudoiks.

The can chock full of juicy worms could well go deeper still. That would be who helped, who allowed powers reserved for the highest levels of police investigation and state security to be usurped for ‘third-party’ surveillance. Surveillance not only of a meaningless celebrity’s toilet habits but such that could compromise national security and those in positions of real power and authority. And yet deeper; is it only the news rooms of NI that benefited from such knowledge and leverage that may have resulted or could this spying network have a darker beneficiary than just pennies on a news-stand.

Trust that such would not occur, just because it should not occur, is misplaced.

Youngster Tasered in the back, whilst trying to run away handcuffed, falls and suffers vegetative head injury. Cop gets pat on the back.

"Had to Tezer her because she was running out of the door"


Many 'cops' are lazy and will use whatever methods they are allowed to get the result they want. That is life; that is the result of sloppy management. Perhaps that is the result of a nation state where the police are allowed to use unnecessary violent force without criticism. Perhaps the reason this sort of treatment of the public is allowed, passes without prosecution resulting, is to send a subliminal message to all that: the 'state' is the power not the people. It is not to help police do their job - breaking the covenant between the police and the people can never contribute to the successfulness of state authorised policing.
See: http://eubrainwashing.blogspot.com/2011/06/nine-principles-of-policing.html

The recommendation from APCO in the UK for the circumstances when our 'police' can use these devices was: where officers are facing violence or threats of violence of such severity that they would need to use force to protect the public, themselves and/or the subject(s) of their action. That is a fair directive (if a state monopoly on the use of force can ever be seen as such).

The actions of the cop who caused this girl to fall and suffer brain damage do not appear meet this sensible APCO directive. She was not a violent threat. The threat of harm to herself was far greater by making her fall whilst handcuffed than the officer's assertion he was concerned she could have run into traffic - what traffic? This is a LIE.

That she was running substantially increased the threat of injury from falling at speed whilst paralysed from the effect of the device. That she was handcuffed made an injury from a fall extremely likely. Injuries resulting from falls is a substantial threat resulting from the use of Tasers, even if the subject is not moving and unrestrained. This is one of many reasions why their use must be strictly limited to the parameters delineated within a directive such as that proffered by the UK APCO. Their use on a running subject should be only under extreme circumstances of violent threat - not a common situation if a subject is running away from you.


The TASER web info states:

* it is important to remember that the very nature of self-defence, use of force, and physical confrontation or incapacitation involves a degree of risk that someone will get hurt or may even be killed due to physical exertion, unforeseen circumstances, and/or individual susceptibilities.

* The TASER device is to be used only for lawful self-defence or in the defence of others.

* its use can result in injuries, including ...... secondary injuries related to falling.

* Subject may fall immediately to the ground and be unable to catch him/herself.

* see downloads manuals at: www.TASER.com

The Nine Principles of Policing

The following set of principles, which lay out in the clearest and most succinct terms the philosophy of policing by consent, appeared as an appendix to A New Study of Police History by Charles Reith (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1956). Reith was a lifelong historian of the police force in Britain, and this book covers the early years of Metropolitan Police following the passage of Sir Robert Peel's 'Bill for Improving the Police in and near the Metropolis' on 19 June 1829. Reith notes that there are particular problems involved in writing police history, owing to the loss or destruction of much early archive material, and, probably for this reason, the principles appear without details of author or date.

 

However, it seems most likely that they were composed by Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne, as the first and joint Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police. Rowan was a military man and Mayne, fourteen years his junior, a barrister. Rowan retired in 1850 leaving Mayne as sole Commissioner until his death in 1868. The sentiments expressed in the 'Nine Principles' reflect those contained in the 'General Instructions', first published in 1829, which were issued to every member of the Metropolitan Police, especially the emphasis on prevention of crime as the most important duty of the police.

Reith notes that Rowan and Mayne's conception of a police force was 'unique in history and throughout the world because it derived not from fear but almost exclusively from public co-operation with the police, induced by them designedly by behaviour which secures and maintains for them the approval, respect and affection of the public' (p. 140).

The Nine Principles of Policing

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.