Pay particular attention to No. 2.
co·er·cion
â?? â??/koÊ?Ë?É?rÊ?É?n/ Show Spelled[koh-ur-shuhn]
â??noun
1.
the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.
force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Are you suggesting people should enact their own punishments or that they should be billed by whatever responding agency comes to their aid after victimization of a crime?
What is your stance on your having the option to opt out of being a citizen here if the conditions are not those that are of your conviction? Or are you here to participate and vote for change and express your opinion? In which case you are voluntarily participating in the system?
[/quote]
Insurance. Under a free market of justice insurance would fill the gap. One either could be covered under their own policy or their employer’s/landlord’s policy. All property owners should have insurance, anyway.
I believe in the concept of nullification. No one should be forced to be part of an association they do not want to.[/quote]
The act of driving on a road means you are reaping the benefit of the tax system.
I don’t like the idea of insurance because too many people can’t afford to pay for their car insurance and to keep heaping costs on them is an undue expense. Having a law enforcement agency that is paid for through my taxes is something I do very much like.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Sorry OG, for hijacking your thread, what do you think about anchor babies?
P.S. Phaethon, start up a thread about private defense, and regulations if you want to discuss this. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is just going to make it so I am posting a wall of text and that is unfair to OG and her thread.[/quote]
haha! well thank you.
I am not a fan of the anchor baby and I am consternated as to why that policy still exists. It has been talked about for years with no remedy.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I don’t want to pay taxes but they are needed to run the government, I may not like how my taxes are spent but I I do use the services and roads they provide.
[/quote]
Why do you need the government to provide these services?[/quote]
I don’t know if I would trust a private army or a private sector to negotiate treaties and tariffs.
As for roads, I don’t know the cost of a road.
In San Diego we used to out source our data processing but then found that it was cheaper to create a department that handles the data. That saves my tax money.
[/quote]
The US already uses private contractors as an army and to provide a huge number of services and has been doing that for a while. Blackwater, Haliburton, Dyncorp, etc.
Blackwater even employ foreign nationals and use them as front line troops in US wars.[/quote]
I am completely aware of that, but I am not aware that they are used domestically. I can see where they could be a private security force on private land, but are you saying they are used as public law enforcement?
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Are you suggesting people should enact their own punishments or that they should be billed by whatever responding agency comes to their aid after victimization of a crime?
What is your stance on your having the option to opt out of being a citizen here if the conditions are not those that are of your conviction? Or are you here to participate and vote for change and express your opinion? In which case you are voluntarily participating in the system?
[/quote]
Insurance. Under a free market of justice insurance would fill the gap. One either could be covered under their own policy or their employer’s/landlord’s policy. All property owners should have insurance, anyway.
I believe in the concept of nullification. No one should be forced to be part of an association they do not want to.[/quote]
The act of driving on a road means you are reaping the benefit of the tax system.
I don’t like the idea of insurance because too many people can’t afford to pay for their car insurance and to keep heaping costs on them is an undue expense. Having a law enforcement agency that is paid for through my taxes is something I do very much like.
[/quote]
I think you are putting the cart before the horse on this one. If you look at insurance at is, it is prohibitively expensive. The reasons can mostly be pointed to the regulation on insurance. Making it more expensive. Think about this, when I had insurance in Kansas it cost me 47 dollars a month (full coverage). I lived in an area that was “above” the median economic level in America. Now tell me why in Arizona insurance is 120 a month for me? The reason, because those companies in Kansas can’t come here and compete. The insurance companies in Arizona therefore can jack their prices up and we can’t really do anything about it since starting up an insurance company is equal to have about 10-15 million dollars already in your bankroll.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Sorry OG, for hijacking your thread, what do you think about anchor babies?
P.S. Phaethon, start up a thread about private defense, and regulations if you want to discuss this. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is just going to make it so I am posting a wall of text and that is unfair to OG and her thread.[/quote]
haha! well thank you.
I am not a fan of the anchor baby and I am consternated as to why that policy still exists. It has been talked about for years with no remedy.
[/quote]
Socialist Government officials.
More voters for benefits and more tax payers = more power for officials to control = more power.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Are you suggesting people should enact their own punishments or that they should be billed by whatever responding agency comes to their aid after victimization of a crime?
What is your stance on your having the option to opt out of being a citizen here if the conditions are not those that are of your conviction? Or are you here to participate and vote for change and express your opinion? In which case you are voluntarily participating in the system?
[/quote]
Insurance. Under a free market of justice insurance would fill the gap. One either could be covered under their own policy or their employer’s/landlord’s policy. All property owners should have insurance, anyway.
I believe in the concept of nullification. No one should be forced to be part of an association they do not want to.[/quote]
The act of driving on a road means you are reaping the benefit of the tax system.
I don’t like the idea of insurance because too many people can’t afford to pay for their car insurance and to keep heaping costs on them is an undue expense. Having a law enforcement agency that is paid for through my taxes is something I do very much like.
[/quote]
I think you are putting the cart before the horse on this one. If you look at insurance at is, it is prohibitively expensive. The reasons can mostly be pointed to the regulation on insurance. Making it more expensive. Think about this, when I had insurance in Kansas it cost me 47 dollars a month (full coverage). I lived in an area that was “above” the median economic level in America. Now tell me why in Arizona insurance is 120 a month for me? The reason, because those companies in Kansas can’t come here and compete. The insurance companies in Arizona therefore can jack their prices up and we can’t really do anything about it since starting up an insurance company is equal to have about 10-15 million dollars already in your bankroll.[/quote]
If I buy insurance privately I pay a lot, if I get insurance through my employer I pay less.
I am not ever going to buy into having to purchase “justice” insurance. Neither theoretically nor hopefully, actually.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Sorry OG, for hijacking your thread, what do you think about anchor babies?
P.S. Phaethon, start up a thread about private defense, and regulations if you want to discuss this. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is just going to make it so I am posting a wall of text and that is unfair to OG and her thread.[/quote]
haha! well thank you.
I am not a fan of the anchor baby and I am consternated as to why that policy still exists. It has been talked about for years with no remedy.
[/quote]
Socialist Government officials.
More voters for benefits and more tax payers = more power for officials to control = more power.[/quote]
I suppose my post was disingenuous but I would have thought the criticism of this policy would have moved things farther along in doing away with it.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Are you suggesting people should enact their own punishments or that they should be billed by whatever responding agency comes to their aid after victimization of a crime?
What is your stance on your having the option to opt out of being a citizen here if the conditions are not those that are of your conviction? Or are you here to participate and vote for change and express your opinion? In which case you are voluntarily participating in the system?
[/quote]
Insurance. Under a free market of justice insurance would fill the gap. One either could be covered under their own policy or their employer’s/landlord’s policy. All property owners should have insurance, anyway.
I believe in the concept of nullification. No one should be forced to be part of an association they do not want to.[/quote]
The act of driving on a road means you are reaping the benefit of the tax system.
I don’t like the idea of insurance because too many people can’t afford to pay for their car insurance and to keep heaping costs on them is an undue expense. Having a law enforcement agency that is paid for through my taxes is something I do very much like.
[/quote]
I think you are putting the cart before the horse on this one. If you look at insurance at is, it is prohibitively expensive. The reasons can mostly be pointed to the regulation on insurance. Making it more expensive. Think about this, when I had insurance in Kansas it cost me 47 dollars a month (full coverage). I lived in an area that was “above” the median economic level in America. Now tell me why in Arizona insurance is 120 a month for me? The reason, because those companies in Kansas can’t come here and compete. The insurance companies in Arizona therefore can jack their prices up and we can’t really do anything about it since starting up an insurance company is equal to have about 10-15 million dollars already in your bankroll.[/quote]
If I buy insurance privately I pay a lot, if I get insurance through my employer I pay less.
I am not ever going to buy into having to purchase “justice” insurance. Neither theoretically nor hopefully, actually.
[/quote]
I do not think it be called justice insurance, I think it be more built in insurance like if someone does injustice to you, you take the to court they have for the lawyers and the judges, etc.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Sorry OG, for hijacking your thread, what do you think about anchor babies?
P.S. Phaethon, start up a thread about private defense, and regulations if you want to discuss this. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is just going to make it so I am posting a wall of text and that is unfair to OG and her thread.[/quote]
haha! well thank you.
I am not a fan of the anchor baby and I am consternated as to why that policy still exists. It has been talked about for years with no remedy.
[/quote]
Socialist Government officials.
More voters for benefits and more tax payers = more power for officials to control = more power.[/quote]
I suppose my post was disingenuous but I would have thought the criticism of this policy would have moved things farther along in doing away with it.
[/quote]
It never amazes me how slow government can put on a process like repealing something like that.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Are you suggesting people should enact their own punishments or that they should be billed by whatever responding agency comes to their aid after victimization of a crime?
What is your stance on your having the option to opt out of being a citizen here if the conditions are not those that are of your conviction? Or are you here to participate and vote for change and express your opinion? In which case you are voluntarily participating in the system?
[/quote]
Insurance. Under a free market of justice insurance would fill the gap. One either could be covered under their own policy or their employer’s/landlord’s policy. All property owners should have insurance, anyway.
I believe in the concept of nullification. No one should be forced to be part of an association they do not want to.[/quote]
The act of driving on a road means you are reaping the benefit of the tax system.
I don’t like the idea of insurance because too many people can’t afford to pay for their car insurance and to keep heaping costs on them is an undue expense. Having a law enforcement agency that is paid for through my taxes is something I do very much like.
[/quote]
I think you are putting the cart before the horse on this one. If you look at insurance at is, it is prohibitively expensive. The reasons can mostly be pointed to the regulation on insurance. Making it more expensive. Think about this, when I had insurance in Kansas it cost me 47 dollars a month (full coverage). I lived in an area that was “above” the median economic level in America. Now tell me why in Arizona insurance is 120 a month for me? The reason, because those companies in Kansas can’t come here and compete. The insurance companies in Arizona therefore can jack their prices up and we can’t really do anything about it since starting up an insurance company is equal to have about 10-15 million dollars already in your bankroll.[/quote]
If I buy insurance privately I pay a lot, if I get insurance through my employer I pay less.
I am not ever going to buy into having to purchase “justice” insurance. Neither theoretically nor hopefully, actually.
[/quote]
I do not think it be called justice insurance, I think it be more built in insurance like if someone does injustice to you, you take the to court they have for the lawyers and the judges, etc.[/quote]
We already pay legal fees including paying for the jury and court reporter if in a civil trial for example.
No, I see where some people might think that is a solution, but I don’t. If a person doesn’t have insurance does that mean he or she will be denied assistance in their time of need? Or if they are provided with assistance but they don’t have insurance and can’t pay who pays for it? Does this mean my rates go up? I live in a border/tourist town, how do you enforce insurance coverage for foreigners?
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Are you suggesting people should enact their own punishments or that they should be billed by whatever responding agency comes to their aid after victimization of a crime?
What is your stance on your having the option to opt out of being a citizen here if the conditions are not those that are of your conviction? Or are you here to participate and vote for change and express your opinion? In which case you are voluntarily participating in the system?
[/quote]
Insurance. Under a free market of justice insurance would fill the gap. One either could be covered under their own policy or their employer’s/landlord’s policy. All property owners should have insurance, anyway.
I believe in the concept of nullification. No one should be forced to be part of an association they do not want to.[/quote]
The act of driving on a road means you are reaping the benefit of the tax system.
I don’t like the idea of insurance because too many people can’t afford to pay for their car insurance and to keep heaping costs on them is an undue expense. Having a law enforcement agency that is paid for through my taxes is something I do very much like.
[/quote]
I think you are putting the cart before the horse on this one. If you look at insurance at is, it is prohibitively expensive. The reasons can mostly be pointed to the regulation on insurance. Making it more expensive. Think about this, when I had insurance in Kansas it cost me 47 dollars a month (full coverage). I lived in an area that was “above” the median economic level in America. Now tell me why in Arizona insurance is 120 a month for me? The reason, because those companies in Kansas can’t come here and compete. The insurance companies in Arizona therefore can jack their prices up and we can’t really do anything about it since starting up an insurance company is equal to have about 10-15 million dollars already in your bankroll.[/quote]
If I buy insurance privately I pay a lot, if I get insurance through my employer I pay less.
I am not ever going to buy into having to purchase “justice” insurance. Neither theoretically nor hopefully, actually.
[/quote]
I do not think it be called justice insurance, I think it be more built in insurance like if someone does injustice to you, you take the to court they have for the lawyers and the judges, etc.[/quote]
We already pay legal fees including paying for the jury and court reporter if in a civil trial for example.
No, I see where some people might think that is a solution, but I don’t. If a person doesn’t have insurance does that mean he or she will be denied assistance in their time of need? Or if they are provided with assistance but they don’t have insurance and can’t pay who pays for it? Does this mean my rates go up? I live in a border/tourist town, how do you enforce insurance coverage for foreigners?[/quote]
That’s the thing, you don’t force people to do things, the only way you force someone to do something is don’t do business with them.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Are you suggesting people should enact their own punishments or that they should be billed by whatever responding agency comes to their aid after victimization of a crime?
What is your stance on your having the option to opt out of being a citizen here if the conditions are not those that are of your conviction? Or are you here to participate and vote for change and express your opinion? In which case you are voluntarily participating in the system?
[/quote]
Insurance. Under a free market of justice insurance would fill the gap. One either could be covered under their own policy or their employer’s/landlord’s policy. All property owners should have insurance, anyway.
I believe in the concept of nullification. No one should be forced to be part of an association they do not want to.[/quote]
The act of driving on a road means you are reaping the benefit of the tax system.
I don’t like the idea of insurance because too many people can’t afford to pay for their car insurance and to keep heaping costs on them is an undue expense. Having a law enforcement agency that is paid for through my taxes is something I do very much like.
[/quote]
I think you are putting the cart before the horse on this one. If you look at insurance at is, it is prohibitively expensive. The reasons can mostly be pointed to the regulation on insurance. Making it more expensive. Think about this, when I had insurance in Kansas it cost me 47 dollars a month (full coverage). I lived in an area that was “above” the median economic level in America. Now tell me why in Arizona insurance is 120 a month for me? The reason, because those companies in Kansas can’t come here and compete. The insurance companies in Arizona therefore can jack their prices up and we can’t really do anything about it since starting up an insurance company is equal to have about 10-15 million dollars already in your bankroll.[/quote]
I’ll try to look up specifics later, but I’m fairly certain this is not true. Most insurance companies are incorporated in Delaware or a few other states for their generous incorporation laws. The specifics of costs and prices have to do with insurance companies not being able to pool members across state lines. As in, An insurance company must force residents in Texarkana to decide if they live Texas or Arkansas, and then price them according to that, because it cannot have a cross-state-border pool of customers.
EDIT: Let Health Insurance Cross State Lines, Some Say - The New York Times
Turns out its a licensing issue, with specific states demanding specific insurance packages to be sold in their state. So, effect is the same, method is different.
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Are you suggesting people should enact their own punishments or that they should be billed by whatever responding agency comes to their aid after victimization of a crime?
What is your stance on your having the option to opt out of being a citizen here if the conditions are not those that are of your conviction? Or are you here to participate and vote for change and express your opinion? In which case you are voluntarily participating in the system?
[/quote]
Insurance. Under a free market of justice insurance would fill the gap. One either could be covered under their own policy or their employer’s/landlord’s policy. All property owners should have insurance, anyway.
I believe in the concept of nullification. No one should be forced to be part of an association they do not want to.[/quote]
The act of driving on a road means you are reaping the benefit of the tax system.
I don’t like the idea of insurance because too many people can’t afford to pay for their car insurance and to keep heaping costs on them is an undue expense. Having a law enforcement agency that is paid for through my taxes is something I do very much like.
[/quote]
I think you are putting the cart before the horse on this one. If you look at insurance at is, it is prohibitively expensive. The reasons can mostly be pointed to the regulation on insurance. Making it more expensive. Think about this, when I had insurance in Kansas it cost me 47 dollars a month (full coverage). I lived in an area that was “above” the median economic level in America. Now tell me why in Arizona insurance is 120 a month for me? The reason, because those companies in Kansas can’t come here and compete. The insurance companies in Arizona therefore can jack their prices up and we can’t really do anything about it since starting up an insurance company is equal to have about 10-15 million dollars already in your bankroll.[/quote]
I’ll try to look up specifics later, but I’m fairly certain this is not true. Most insurance companies are incorporated in Delaware or a few other states for their generous incorporation laws. The specifics of costs and prices have to do with insurance companies not being able to pool members across state lines. As in, An insurance company must force residents in Texarkana to decide if they live Texas or Arkansas, and then price them according to that, because it cannot have a cross-state-border pool of customers.
EDIT: Let Health Insurance Cross State Lines, Some Say - The New York Times
Turns out its a licensing issue, with specific states demanding specific insurance packages to be sold in their state. So, effect is the same, method is different.[/quote]
Yeah, and stuff like states demanding that an insurance company having an office in their actual state to sell insurance.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Are you suggesting people should enact their own punishments or that they should be billed by whatever responding agency comes to their aid after victimization of a crime?
What is your stance on your having the option to opt out of being a citizen here if the conditions are not those that are of your conviction? Or are you here to participate and vote for change and express your opinion? In which case you are voluntarily participating in the system?
[/quote]
Insurance. Under a free market of justice insurance would fill the gap. One either could be covered under their own policy or their employer’s/landlord’s policy. All property owners should have insurance, anyway.
I believe in the concept of nullification. No one should be forced to be part of an association they do not want to.[/quote]
The act of driving on a road means you are reaping the benefit of the tax system.
I don’t like the idea of insurance because too many people can’t afford to pay for their car insurance and to keep heaping costs on them is an undue expense. Having a law enforcement agency that is paid for through my taxes is something I do very much like.
[/quote]
I think you are putting the cart before the horse on this one. If you look at insurance at is, it is prohibitively expensive. The reasons can mostly be pointed to the regulation on insurance. Making it more expensive. Think about this, when I had insurance in Kansas it cost me 47 dollars a month (full coverage). I lived in an area that was “above” the median economic level in America. Now tell me why in Arizona insurance is 120 a month for me? The reason, because those companies in Kansas can’t come here and compete. The insurance companies in Arizona therefore can jack their prices up and we can’t really do anything about it since starting up an insurance company is equal to have about 10-15 million dollars already in your bankroll.[/quote]
I’ll try to look up specifics later, but I’m fairly certain this is not true. Most insurance companies are incorporated in Delaware or a few other states for their generous incorporation laws. The specifics of costs and prices have to do with insurance companies not being able to pool members across state lines. As in, An insurance company must force residents in Texarkana to decide if they live Texas or Arkansas, and then price them according to that, because it cannot have a cross-state-border pool of customers.
EDIT: Let Health Insurance Cross State Lines, Some Say - The New York Times
Turns out its a licensing issue, with specific states demanding specific insurance packages to be sold in their state. So, effect is the same, method is different.[/quote]
Yeah, and stuff like states demanding that an insurance company having an office in their actual state to sell insurance.[/quote]
I can’t imagine a requirement to have an office would be that burdensome. All they would need is an address and a gentleman to pick up mail once a week. The rest could be handled digitally by their main office. And now they have an entire state opened to them. It’d be fairly easy to open up all the big states in such a manner, if that’s the only other burden.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I don’t want to pay taxes but they are needed to run the government, I may not like how my taxes are spent but I I do use the services and roads they provide.
[/quote]
Why do you need the government to provide these services?[/quote]
I don’t know if I would trust a private army or a private sector to negotiate treaties and tariffs.
As for roads, I don’t know the cost of a road.
In San Diego we used to out source our data processing but then found that it was cheaper to create a department that handles the data. That saves my tax money.
[/quote]
The US already uses private contractors as an army and to provide a huge number of services and has been doing that for a while. Blackwater, Haliburton, Dyncorp, etc.
Blackwater even employ foreign nationals and use them as front line troops in US wars.[/quote]
I am completely aware of that, but I am not aware that they are used domestically. I can see where they could be a private security force on private land, but are you saying they are used as public law enforcement?
[/quote]
Yup, they were deployed after Katrina in New Orleans and I am pretty sure they have been used many more times.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I don’t want to pay taxes but they are needed to run the government, I may not like how my taxes are spent but I I do use the services and roads they provide.
[/quote]
Why do you need the government to provide these services?[/quote]
I don’t know if I would trust a private army or a private sector to negotiate treaties and tariffs.
As for roads, I don’t know the cost of a road.
In San Diego we used to out source our data processing but then found that it was cheaper to create a department that handles the data. That saves my tax money.
[/quote]
The US already uses private contractors as an army and to provide a huge number of services and has been doing that for a while. Blackwater, Haliburton, Dyncorp, etc.
Blackwater even employ foreign nationals and use them as front line troops in US wars.[/quote]
I am completely aware of that, but I am not aware that they are used domestically. I can see where they could be a private security force on private land, but are you saying they are used as public law enforcement?
[/quote]
Yup, they were deployed after Katrina in New Orleans and I am pretty sure they have been used many more times.[/quote]
Do you know what Marshall Law is?
I think you need cite where a private military firm acted during Katrina.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I don’t want to pay taxes but they are needed to run the government, I may not like how my taxes are spent but I I do use the services and roads they provide.
[/quote]
Why do you need the government to provide these services?[/quote]
I don’t know if I would trust a private army or a private sector to negotiate treaties and tariffs.
As for roads, I don’t know the cost of a road.
In San Diego we used to out source our data processing but then found that it was cheaper to create a department that handles the data. That saves my tax money.
[/quote]
The US already uses private contractors as an army and to provide a huge number of services and has been doing that for a while. Blackwater, Haliburton, Dyncorp, etc.
Blackwater even employ foreign nationals and use them as front line troops in US wars.[/quote]
I am completely aware of that, but I am not aware that they are used domestically. I can see where they could be a private security force on private land, but are you saying they are used as public law enforcement?
[/quote]
Yup, they were deployed after Katrina in New Orleans and I am pretty sure they have been used many more times.[/quote]
Do you know what Marshall Law is?
I think you need cite where a private military firm acted during Katrina.
[/quote]
I thought this was common knowledge. Don’t you watch Treme?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/22/opinion/main878822_page2.shtml
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Are you suggesting people should enact their own punishments or that they should be billed by whatever responding agency comes to their aid after victimization of a crime?
What is your stance on your having the option to opt out of being a citizen here if the conditions are not those that are of your conviction? Or are you here to participate and vote for change and express your opinion? In which case you are voluntarily participating in the system?
[/quote]
Insurance. Under a free market of justice insurance would fill the gap. One either could be covered under their own policy or their employer’s/landlord’s policy. All property owners should have insurance, anyway.
I believe in the concept of nullification. No one should be forced to be part of an association they do not want to.[/quote]
The act of driving on a road means you are reaping the benefit of the tax system.
I don’t like the idea of insurance because too many people can’t afford to pay for their car insurance and to keep heaping costs on them is an undue expense. Having a law enforcement agency that is paid for through my taxes is something I do very much like.
[/quote]
I think you are putting the cart before the horse on this one. If you look at insurance at is, it is prohibitively expensive. The reasons can mostly be pointed to the regulation on insurance. Making it more expensive. Think about this, when I had insurance in Kansas it cost me 47 dollars a month (full coverage). I lived in an area that was “above” the median economic level in America. Now tell me why in Arizona insurance is 120 a month for me? The reason, because those companies in Kansas can’t come here and compete. The insurance companies in Arizona therefore can jack their prices up and we can’t really do anything about it since starting up an insurance company is equal to have about 10-15 million dollars already in your bankroll.[/quote]
I’ll try to look up specifics later, but I’m fairly certain this is not true. Most insurance companies are incorporated in Delaware or a few other states for their generous incorporation laws. The specifics of costs and prices have to do with insurance companies not being able to pool members across state lines. As in, An insurance company must force residents in Texarkana to decide if they live Texas or Arkansas, and then price them according to that, because it cannot have a cross-state-border pool of customers.
EDIT: Let Health Insurance Cross State Lines, Some Say - The New York Times
Turns out its a licensing issue, with specific states demanding specific insurance packages to be sold in their state. So, effect is the same, method is different.[/quote]
Yeah, and stuff like states demanding that an insurance company having an office in their actual state to sell insurance.[/quote]
I can’t imagine a requirement to have an office would be that burdensome. All they would need is an address and a gentleman to pick up mail once a week. The rest could be handled digitally by their main office. And now they have an entire state opened to them. It’d be fairly easy to open up all the big states in such a manner, if that’s the only other burden. [/quote]
No, when I mean office I mean the whole shabang, like you are starting up a new business.
In Kansas you have to appeal for a license, they review it, if they approve it (which I believe cost a million for the license) then they give you a year to come up with 12 million dollars. But you have to license all your guys to sell stocks to collect the money first, and you have to create the corporation and get the paper work in the actual state.
Then after they see you have collected the amount, they then review your appeal and may or may not give you the license. They may require more money in your bankroll before sending it to the board for official review. When they send it to the review board for final decision you have to have everything in order. Everything, anything off, snip snip, go back to the back of the line. If you are given your license to have an insurance company in that state, you then have to hire people that have the license to actually sell insurance to people.
So, not necessary to just have a mailbox and an address, most states want offices, the kind the customer can come to and talk to their agent. And you have to have insurance license in the state, a bankroll, and agents with licenses to sell insurance. Which seems simple, but it’s not. Yes, big insurance companies have an easier time as they usually have the 10-25 million to fund the bankroll, and the couple million to pay for the license. However, that makes it damn tough for new people to enter the insurance business without the bankroll.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I don’t want to pay taxes but they are needed to run the government, I may not like how my taxes are spent but I I do use the services and roads they provide.
[/quote]
Why do you need the government to provide these services?[/quote]
I don’t know if I would trust a private army or a private sector to negotiate treaties and tariffs.
As for roads, I don’t know the cost of a road.
In San Diego we used to out source our data processing but then found that it was cheaper to create a department that handles the data. That saves my tax money.
[/quote]
The US already uses private contractors as an army and to provide a huge number of services and has been doing that for a while. Blackwater, Haliburton, Dyncorp, etc.
Blackwater even employ foreign nationals and use them as front line troops in US wars.[/quote]
I am completely aware of that, but I am not aware that they are used domestically. I can see where they could be a private security force on private land, but are you saying they are used as public law enforcement?
[/quote]
Yup, they were deployed after Katrina in New Orleans and I am pretty sure they have been used many more times.[/quote]
Do you know what Marshall Law is?
I think you need cite where a private military firm acted during Katrina.
[/quote]
I thought this was common knowledge. Don’t you watch Treme?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/22/opinion/main878822_page2.shtml[/quote]
so it was a private force on private land.
but… thank you, the extent was larger than I had envisioned.