[ExI] Jimmy 'the Greek' Snyder

[Dan TheBookMan]

I don't have all the answers here, but personal self-defense and voluntary defense associations for those extremely rare occasions when violent confrontations happen. Private security already plays a role in current US-American society, such as security guards inside shopping malls and the like. So I don't see any reason why people can't specialize in security and things like detection and apprehension of suspects. What wouldn't exist under such a system is a group of people who have special privileges because of this specialization. (And self-help wouldn't be outlawed.)

Elsewhere I mentioned Bruce L. Benson's 1990 book _The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State_. He goes over much of this in far more depth than me. Also, market anarchists have been discussing how to deal with crime without the state for decades now. This is all part of the literature of libertarian thought, no? (What shocks me is meeting people who call themselves libertarians who seem unaware of this work. Have you heard of Benson's work? That's not his only book. How about George H. Smith? Have you read his essay "Justice Entrepreneurship In a Free Market"? He wrote on this subject back in 1979!)

Regards,

Dan
   Sample my Kindle books at:
http://author.to/DanUst

> On Jun 8, 2020, at 3:21 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 
> dan wrote - I don't agree with the view that somehow having no police around all the thugs will go on a crime spree
> 
> Fine.  But even if crime is less there have to be people to deal with it.  What do you suggest?
> 
> bill w
>> 
>> It seems you believe I'm against people defending themselves and others. Is this so? In fact, I've argued for arming the masses -- not just the US-American masses, but worldwide. This is the correct Left position on this issue. (In fact, traditionally, the Right wants the masses disarmed to prevent them getting uppity. The strange thing is that many modern Leftists seem to want the opposite: disarmed masses and armed elites. To me, this is typically how those in the Left eventually turn to the Right on issues once they have power.)  
>> 
>> In fact, I'd argue that immigrants and other marginal people need to be armed and defended more so than your average person. For instance, immigrants in the US tend to commit less crime but suffer more crime than non-immigrants. This is so even though, as studies have shown, immigrants tend to under-report crimes committed against them. Ditto for trans people and for 'mentally ill' people.*
>> 
>> That said, overall violence is down. I don't agree with the view that somehow having no police around all the thugs will go on a crime spree. That's like a Hollywood movie scenario. Real life, however, almost never looks like that. A case in point is almost any natural disaster. We generally don't see Mad Max: Fury Road playing out, but people usually helping each other. (Yet just about any movie about a natural disaster shows people turning vicious and against each other. Again, look at the real world events and data -- rather than movie or TV narrative.)
>> 
>> As for your citing the COTUS, you should note well that the right has been infringed, and that should call into question your seeing the COTUS as some sort of shield against injustice. Either the COTUS authorized those infringements or did nothing to stop them. Or as Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) put it:
>> 
>> 'But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.  In either case it is unfit to exist.'
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> * I'm not the only one calling for this. See Jane Louise's piece from five years ago:
>> 
>> https://c4ss.org/content/3966
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200609/c77b1f12/attachment.htm>