A simple example as to why fiat institutions can't stand
The Goiânia accident is a world famous case of widespread radioactive contamination due to mishandling of a medical radiosource. The events flowed something like this :
A private clinic owned some equipment, which included a standard 70 TBq Cesium-137 source encased in a 5 x 5 cm lead capsule. A state agencyi kicked this private clinic out of its premises, stealing their equipment in the process. So, robberyii by a state agency.
The local court granted an injunction, preventing the private owners from forcibly retaking control of their own equipment. So, conspiracy to commit robbery, criminal obstruction of justice by the state-run court system.
The court was apprised of the inherent danger of idiots and imbeciles (which is to say, any person ever employed by any government in any capacity) being left in charge of radioactive material, even as small a quantity as available in a medical device, and as securely packed as is the case in the medical device. The court failed to take adequate measures to protect the material in question. So, criminal negligence by the state-run court.
The victims of all this government-sponsored criminality, which is to say the private parties that bought and paid for the equipment in question only to have it stolen from them, spend further time and money sending numerous communications to the various authorities (such as the National Nuclear Energy Commission), warning them of the inherent dangers of allowing idiots and imbeciles (which is to say, any person ever employed by any government in any capacity) in control of radioactive material. Nothing happens, obviously, so criminal negligence by the state agencies in question.
Two unapprehended thieves (criminal negligence by the state-run court) broke into the premises, removed the equipment in question, took it home, then proceeded to break open the safety capsule, removed the radioactive material, sprinkled it liberally all over the floor, their own clothes, the body of a six year old, her sandwich, and so on. Their behaviour is perfectly consistent with that of monkeys (criminal negligence by the state-run school system).
The six year old died a horrible death, consisting of hairloss, internal bleeding, swelling, ulcerations. Her mother died the same death. A couple young men "employed" (criminal negligence by the state-run employment supervisory board) by the sort of retards that did this entire thing also died, from exposure suffered at their workplace, through the fault of their employers.
The retarded inhabitants of the general area manage to erect barricades to impede the interrment of the dead 6 yo girl (criminal negligence by the state-run police).
The state authority stages a show trial. Charged, the victims of the original theft. Not charged : the idiots and imbeciles who stole the equipment from its owners (who had operated it safely and securely for more than a decade at that point) ; the institution that was employing the idiots and imbeciles in question ; the idiots and imbeciles that, acting under color of law, conspired to the robbery and obstructed justice ; the institution that employed the idiots and imbeciles in question ; the idiots and imbeciles that under the guise of operating a junk yard broke into and removed radioactive material from its protective casing, and in the process exposed their employees to deadly levels of radiation, and also contaminated large sections of the downtown.
This is it, quite exactly : fiat institutions can not be trusted because they are inherently criminal in nature. The sooner they are separated from any sort of possible effect on the comings and goings of life on Earth, the better for everyone involved.
———
Sunday, 8 December 2013
Soooo.... how can you make bitcoin-run courts and bitcoin-run police? Or should we settle our differences the old fashion way?
Sunday, 8 December 2013
Gpg contracts.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
That's pretty much a good idea, but what about the police? If there were no police it's likely criminal factions would form that would overpower any individual or family's ability to defend themselves. And if everyone had to defend themselves, for example by carrying weapons, it would be really easy to make the switch from honest and nice citizen to criminal, if the need arise, and it pretty much surely will arise in the course of one's lifetime.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
"Stand your ground" as it's being called these days has been a feature of any legal system ever since the dawn of legal systems. It'll be interesting to see proof that "the police" ever did anything more or anything better than that (conversely, it's very easy to say how much the police cost, at a minimum).
The distinction between "honest citizen" and "criminal" is complicated. That complexity is quite why we need to start confronting it, rather than shove it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
Well, at least armed gangs are not roaming every street, so people don't have the necessity to bear arms, and if a gang kidnaps someone (which would be the primary means of making any considerable amount of money from ordinary people in a world with electronic payments) at least there will be consequences for the criminals. An individual doesn't have the resources to track down the people who kidnapped a member of his family, much less kill them.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
The police in its current form certainly isn't what's keeping people honest. When they're not busy killing dogs their role is mostly to keep a log of complaints, don't expect much more.
Still, I doubt a system without legitimate initiation of force to repair wrongdoings could exist for long.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
It's not about keeping people honest, it's about making sure that being dishonest carries some risk, as opposed to negligible risk to no risk in the absence of the police.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
@ghe Do you have any idea how many pretty young white blond girls are missing in the civilised world currently ? Leaving alone all the unfortunate schmucks that don't happen to be white, or blonde, or pretty. Or young.
The system as it is "works" principally through supression of information and the inclination built into any good doobie to fill the gaps optimistically. You could get the same result through the same means if you ran things the other way, too.
@pankkake Can wrongdoing be repaired ? When ? How ?
@ghe You still have to bring any sort of convincing argument that the police does on the net more towards adding risk for criminals than substracting it. For instance, plenty of poor urban areas in the US are run today as police extraction rackets. This isn't new, either.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
The statistics are pretty clear that violence has been continually decreasing. It's also pretty rare to see someone being hacked with a sword on the street (personally, not on liveleak), as opposed to a few hundred years ago.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
This is clearly proving that the jar of stale pickled culliflower Brondogart the Magnificent burried in the back of his shed in 1672 is working as intended.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
I like how violence is only comprised of stuff that includes swords. Whole lotta shit just opened up for free license.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
http://www.stiridecluj.ro/social/politist-clujean-atacat-de-tigani-cu-sabii-si-bate-omul-legii-a-scos-pistolul-ca-in-vestul-salbatic-video
Policeman attacked "with swords". Methinks perhaps ghe is getting his news off a special pipe.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
How am I wrong? Do you have some data that show an increase in violence? That should be the case if the police is useless.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
"Can wrongdoing be repaired ? When ? How ?"
You stole my bike, I (or someone else) take it back. With force.
"The statistics are pretty clear that violence has been continually decreasing."
I would simply think violence is decreasing because people are overall richer and do not need violence. (Or if they need it, they simply go insult or "kill" people over the Internet.)
Sunday, 8 December 2013
Anon, have you seen that yourself? I've never seen gypsies cut someone up with a sword, though I had a lot in the vicinity.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
@pletzalcoatl By which token, an increase in passive-agressive behaviours attendant delays in maturity is actually more a contributor to general welfare than the police.
@Anon Lol. Sec.
@ghe No, that would be the case if Persifort the Evil's hidden black pearl was overpowering the pickle jar. Gotta identify the related variables correctly!
Sunday, 8 December 2013
Ghe- This "I've never seen" approach may be flawed. Murder of Kitty Genovese.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
Ok then, lets tell the police to take a vacation for a couple of months to see what impact their activity has on our safety. Then we can say for sure. But the thing is that you also don't have any real data, but claim knowledge on the subject.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
@pankkake Perhaps your post contains in the second part the solution for the first part. On one hand, if your bike was actually a virtual bike I don't generally need to take the thief's bike to give you back "your" bike. I can just give you another instance of the bike. Coming full circle, the thief himself doesn't actually need to take your bike either, he can just give himself a bike.
If your bike wasn't actually a virtual bike, does it make a difference to you if you receive the exact bike ? Perhaps a replacement, perhaps the cash value is a better substitution. Consider that business doesn't seem to be organised on the principle you get the same item back, should it have a deffect or anything. For that matter, neither were the courts, historically and to this day - the most you'll get is an order for damages.
Which you won't get anyway, because a) the police isn't chasing your bike (nor could they) and b) the courts aren't in the business of fixing bike disputes.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
"lets tell the police to take a vacation for a couple of months"
No, that is also a flawed argument. If we were discussing if wood or steel trellising works better to support mine walls, where wood is in place already, saying "we'll let's just take the wood out see how well the mine holds then!" doesn't particularly bring anything to the table.
Similarly, if women have already had their necks destroyed by neck rings, saying "o, so if neck rings are bad let's just take them off see how well the woman does then!" is nonsense.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
Good point anon.