First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Private Law society
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 9/20/10
Most people assume that the production of crime-defense must come from some the state, it itself the source of why people need defense in the first place.
I also bring this up due to the highly distressing, and angering, news of all media sources of police brutality.
Granted most of this is not completely finished, but the philosophy is sound enough that if refined, would work wonders.

First I propose this question to you.
Imagine yourself and 1000 other people are rounded up by aliens, with your earthly possessions, and dropped on another planet. In this case also everyone is from the same town.
This small population decides to better protect itself for the moment, it needs a method of defense.
A man says...
"Let us all give all our powerful weapons to John, and his family members exclusively, we shall allow john to decide which weapons we can keep, and to compensate for their service we shall allow him to use our arms against us to exact a payment he deems fit."

Automatically this sounds fishy no matter who you are, yet this is what we have now.

Observe.
The homes on 10th street suffer from property violators on a bi-weekly basis. The people demand their government use their taxes to position a policeman on their street. Obviously no small-time criminal would do anything to irritate a cop to cause himself to be arrested. So the property violator/s move on elsewhere.
Problem solved right? But lets observe a more cynical view to this. If the crime has been corrected then what reason is there to keep the cop positioned on 10th street? Would the incentive of "job-loss" make the cop allow crimes to occur so that he makes arrests?
So he says to the members of a budget meeting.
"I now need more money, for more men, and more guns. Criminals are still committing their crimes."
Money being granted to him, the cop gets an idea. To "catch them in the act" he dresses down in jeans and shirt, and sits in a regular "unmarked" car. Property violator see no police and commit their crime anyway only to be arrested by the "undercover" police, whereas previously they would have just left. Reset and repeat, in a state manufactured con-game.
Worse off, no matter how many arrests occur, crime will continue rise.

I propose a Free and Equal Entry of the Production of Defense
A means that government can save from spending, and lower taxes
Increase employment (even if in single digits upwards)
Lower crime, (or at least deter crime in all but the most insane individuals)
and to Increase happiness among people.

I would assume insurance companies would be most capable of performing this task by the provided example.

John who lives in a no-so-peaceful area of town suffers from regular property violations, hears of car thefts, murder, and rape in town. Obviously distressing.
John goes to his insurance provider at Ace Insurance Company, and arranges with his insurance agent a measure of defense. His $3,000,000 dollar policy covers his health, home, car, and his most valuable articles of personal property.
His agent at Ace Insurance knows the level of crime is so high, it could be very likely John can be injured or killed and Ace Insurance would have to pay up a large compensation.
The problem is solved by simply Ace Insurance invests their own money, hiring an armed man from a Pro-Security firm at 25K a year, and stations him at John's house, to chauffeur John to and from his home.
John, being secured, lives a long life and dies peaceful in his bed due to old age 20 years later.
$25,000 X 20years = $500,000 And not one cent comes from the public treasury.

During 2007 (In my own city) "Police Protection" accounted for $36,500 per police officer per year. This cost the tax payers in my town 730,000 for every cop per 20 years. A difference of $230,000 in this model.

Neighborhoods
Few people in the above example live in such a way to provide sufficient security, so the next example the production of security is expanded.

The 500 residents on 10th street live in a neighborhood where the likelihood of violent crime is 15%.
Fearing for their lives and property the people take insurance policies on themselves. Their insurance company hires defense-agents to defend the residents of 10th street at $500 per-person per-year.
500p x $500 = $250,000

Here, Ace Insurance take $25,000 as an initial payment for themselves (paperwork, taxes, utility bills, most importantly reserve cash for the payment of policy holders when needed.) and is left with $225,000.
Of the $225,000 it is divided evenly to hire 15 guards at a sum of $15,000 per-year. The guards buy for themselves, body-armor, weapons, radios, vehicle maintenance, etc. Anything left over is rightfully theirs.

Multiply this example by x00 blocks and already the people already see a 45 to 55 percent savings, as compared to state provided "security". And if the crime level drops down to .5% then the insurance pays for itself.


Light vs Heavy
How does government know how much defense is needed? Quite simply it doesn't. At best it can only look at an area, observe the nature of its surroundings, and make a general guess. But regardless of its best guesses, it is still only that, a guess.
So how does government know if a small plaza needs the full time defense of a SWAT Team?
How does government know if a house needs a police car to at least pass by so-many times per-day?

This problem would be irrelevant to Ace Insurance.
First it would call their policy holders to a meeting on a convenient day of their choosing. And on this day, they discuss how much defense these policy holders need.

For this example, it is the people of nice middle class homes.
Everyone agrees that they do want armed defense, but not threateningly to the point they scare off family members, or dear friends. Afterall the most these people usually worry about is the theft of stolen garden gnomes, or scratched car doors. So they come to the agreement 9 guards with pistols, and 1 guard with a rifle/shotgun, but hidden away and only called out when crimes actually happen. They must be dressed in non-threateningly. (ie red polo shirt, khaki's, white tennis shoes.)
The agreement met, a contract is brought up for each home owner, worded in such a way as such

I _______ agree to pay X$'s for the maintenance of armed guards to protect my property, to pursue actively dangerous criminals that have negative effects against my life and property.
________
Signature


In another more industrial, high-crime area of town, a different agreement is made.
Here in this example, more dangerous criminals commit their crimes, (rape, murder, repeated theft, etc...) on a 20% likelihood one can be assaulted
People are called to a meeting with their insurance provider, but unlike the well-off homes up-town, the necessity of overt defense is needed. The people agree to better insure their lives and property, armed defense agents are employed bearing M-16's or Tommy-Guns.

If over time, the crime drops down to 5% then a meeting can be arranged to decrease the level of security and adjust the paid premiums accordingly.


The Cop/God complex
"Won't my defense agents become like the cops?" You may ask...

Not likely. Currently most if not all police assume one must absolutely humble themselves before their presence, least they incur a swift beating over the head (If one is that lucky to get away with just that.)
Observe Mall-Guards. They're paid to defend their clients property, maintain general peace, pursue thieves. But at the same time maintain good behavior standards, if not customers would have little reason to return. Rude guards are a liability, Polite guards are guaranteed employment.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 9/20/10
Why not just skip all that and give all the citizens of 10th street guns ? If one breaks into their home the owner can simply shoot him.
Posted 9/20/10

Allhailodin wrote:

Why not just skip all that and give all the citizens of 10th street guns ? If one breaks into their home the owner can simply shoot him.


because having lots of guns does mean that your safe.
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 9/20/10 , edited 9/20/10

Allhailodin wrote:

Why not just skip all that and give all the citizens of 10th street guns ? If one breaks into their home the owner can simply shoot him.


Because not everyone is willing to shoot at another person, even if he endangers his/her life. This is making the argument for alternative defense services.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 9/20/10 , edited 9/20/10

Weapon-01 wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:

Why not just skip all that and give all the citizens of 10th street guns ? If one breaks into their home the owner can simply shoot him.


Because not everyone is willing to shoot at another person, even if he endangers his/her life. This is making the argument for alternative defense services.


Then they get weeded out.

Its a form of natural selection.

You need to at least defend yourself, if your not willing to do that, you die. Simple
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 9/20/10

Allhailodin wrote:


Weapon-01 wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:

Why not just skip all that and give all the citizens of 10th street guns ? If one breaks into their home the owner can simply shoot him.


Because not everyone is willing to shoot at another person, even if he endangers his/her life. This is making the argument for alternative defense services.


Then they get weeded out.

Its a form of natural selection.

You need to at least defend yourself, if your not willing to do that, you die. Simple


So you would say a elderly man, crippled by a debilitating condition, has no right to live simply by the fact he is unable to hold a gun on his own?
By that same argument, are children subject to be "weeded out" simply by falling prey to adult predators, because they can't defend themselves?

I'm not against people being armed. I often harass my own representative (via email and over the phone) to get rid of all the arms laws in statute. I got guns I want, and a full-auto AA-12 shotgun is one of them.

But their are conditions out there, beyond peoples control, and would demand private defense services, if available.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 9/20/10 , edited 9/20/10

Weapon-01 wrote:

So you would say a elderly man, crippled by a debilitating condition, has no right to live simply by the fact he is unable to hold a gun on his own?
By that same argument, are children subject to be "weeded out" simply by falling prey to adult predators, because they can't defend themselves?

I'm not against people being armed. I often harass my own representative (via email and over the phone) to get rid of all the arms laws in statute. I got guns I want, and a full-auto AA-12 shotgun is one of them.

But their are conditions out there, beyond peoples control, and would demand private defense services, if available.


I never said you don't have the right to live. I said, if your not willing to defend yourself. You die. That's how the world works.
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 9/20/10

Allhailodin wrote:


Weapon-01 wrote:

So you would say a elderly man, crippled by a debilitating condition, has no right to live simply by the fact he is unable to hold a gun on his own?
By that same argument, are children subject to be "weeded out" simply by falling prey to adult predators, because they can't defend themselves?

I'm not against people being armed. I often harass my own representative (via email and over the phone) to get rid of all the arms laws in statute. I got guns I want, and a full-auto AA-12 shotgun is one of them.

But their are conditions out there, beyond peoples control, and would demand private defense services, if available.


I never said you don't have the right to live. I said, if your not willing to defend yourself. You die. That's how the world works.


Let me rephrase my question then....
An elderly man who wants to live till the day of his natural death, should be killed because his debilitating condition prevents him from holding his gun.

Did I get that right?
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 9/20/10

Weapon-01 wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Weapon-01 wrote:

So you would say a elderly man, crippled by a debilitating condition, has no right to live simply by the fact he is unable to hold a gun on his own?
By that same argument, are children subject to be "weeded out" simply by falling prey to adult predators, because they can't defend themselves?

I'm not against people being armed. I often harass my own representative (via email and over the phone) to get rid of all the arms laws in statute. I got guns I want, and a full-auto AA-12 shotgun is one of them.

But their are conditions out there, beyond peoples control, and would demand private defense services, if available.


I never said you don't have the right to live. I said, if your not willing to defend yourself. You die. That's how the world works.


Let me rephrase my question then....
An elderly man who wants to live till the day of his natural death, should be killed because his debilitating condition prevents him from holding his gun.

Did I get that right?


No he shouldn't be killed, but he would be. That's just how the world works.
3498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Nowheresville, MI
Offline
Posted 9/20/10 , edited 9/20/10
I see a few problems with his idea,
1. No insurance company would ever offer a policy like this. The liability far outweights any possible return. All it would take is one of these "defense agents" screwing up and the ensueing lawsuit would put the insurer out of business.
2. You think anyone would do this job for 15k a year after expenses?
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 9/20/10
The right to bear arms that also to defend are self against, foreign or domestic defence even are own government. People silly enough to trust government will lose there rights as time pass by. Then all the thing you take for granted can be taken from you by marshal law. No weapons to defend your self's you can be heard up like sheep. Then at that point you have already become sheep, so no big deal. In Smyrna Ga they past a law all home owners have to own at least one firearm. Crime rate cut in half in a year time did they enforce no but what criminal going to take the chance at get killed, for breaking and entering. Only sheep think a world with out wolves is safe forget about all the other predators lamb chop any-one?
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 9/20/10

impala1 wrote:

I see a few problems with his idea,
1. No insurance company would ever offer a policy like this. The liability far outweights any possible return. All it would take is one of these "defense agents" screwing up and the ensueing lawsuit would put the insurer out of business.
2. You think anyone would do this job for 15k a year after expenses?


1
Why not? Besides in my initial entry, it's only a model to go by, not the standard of the way things are.
And what better alternative is there? Police reform? Most if not all police brutalities go unpunished, and the few that do get to the court system, are given little more than a ceremony trail, and are punished with little more than a slap on the wrist and paid-administrative-leave (tax funded paid vacations.) At least with a defense agent you can sue him in court, and be compensated for your loses.

2
As for 15k a year. Well maybe the money is really worth something. Consider this, 100 years ago a $20 bill could buy you a 1 week worth of groceries at the store. $200 could buy a new pickup truck, $250 could buy you a Thompson Machinegun. So in this case 15k is a lot of money.
3498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Nowheresville, MI
Offline
Posted 9/21/10
It sounds to me like you're talking about privatizing the police force. While it may be a usable model with work, there is one big problem. The LONG odds are the public will never,ever,ever,ever go for it.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 9/21/10 , edited 9/21/10

Weapon-01 wrote:


impala1 wrote:

I see a few problems with his idea,
1. No insurance company would ever offer a policy like this. The liability far outweights any possible return. All it would take is one of these "defense agents" screwing up and the ensueing lawsuit would put the insurer out of business.
2. You think anyone would do this job for 15k a year after expenses?


1
Why not? Besides in my initial entry, it's only a model to go by, not the standard of the way things are.
And what better alternative is there? Police reform? Most if not all police brutalities go unpunished, and the few that do get to the court system, are given little more than a ceremony trail, and are punished with little more than a slap on the wrist and paid-administrative-leave (tax funded paid vacations.) At least with a defense agent you can sue him in court, and be compensated for your loses.

2
As for 15k a year. Well maybe the money is really worth something. Consider this, 100 years ago a $20 bill could buy you a 1 week worth of groceries at the store. $200 could buy a new pickup truck, $250 could buy you a Thompson Machinegun. So in this case 15k is a lot of money.


1, because if the rent a cop screws up, the insurance company will be sued, and they will have to fork over a fuckton of monies. No sane insurance company would ever do that. Its a massive liability that outweighs the benefits.

2. The insurance company isn't making any money by hiring people to defend you, an insurance company(or any other business for that matter) frowns upon that sort of thing, what the insurance company would do is sell you property insurance.
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 9/21/10

Allhailodin wrote:


Weapon-01 wrote:


impala1 wrote:

I see a few problems with his idea,
1. No insurance company would ever offer a policy like this. The liability far outweights any possible return. All it would take is one of these "defense agents" screwing up and the ensueing lawsuit would put the insurer out of business.
2. You think anyone would do this job for 15k a year after expenses?


1
Why not? Besides in my initial entry, it's only a model to go by, not the standard of the way things are.
And what better alternative is there? Police reform? Most if not all police brutalities go unpunished, and the few that do get to the court system, are given little more than a ceremony trail, and are punished with little more than a slap on the wrist and paid-administrative-leave (tax funded paid vacations.) At least with a defense agent you can sue him in court, and be compensated for your loses.

2
As for 15k a year. Well maybe the money is really worth something. Consider this, 100 years ago a $20 bill could buy you a 1 week worth of groceries at the store. $200 could buy a new pickup truck, $250 could buy you a Thompson Machinegun. So in this case 15k is a lot of money.


1, because if the rent a cop screws up, the insurance company will be sued, and they will have to fork over a fuckton of monies. No sane insurance company would ever do that. Its a massive liability that outweighs the benefits.

2. The insurance company isn't making any money by hiring people to defend you, an insurance company(or any other business for that matter) frowns upon that sort of thing, what the insurance company would do is sell you property insurance.


Fine. Live in the past. Live the statist-quo. Do as you're told. You're not my problem.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.