Gyroscopic Investing

I remember when this story broke. It is ending unhappily.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140 ... stice.html

Collado was one of more than 20 bodega and corner-store owners who independently told the Daily News in its 2009 series "Tainted Justice" that narcotics officers had destroyed their video cameras and then pocketed cash, helped themselves to food and drinks, and walked out with armfuls of merchandise.Several merchants told reporters this week that they were angry - and puzzled: How could U.S. Attorney Zane David Memeger close the case without conducting, in their minds, a thorough investigation?

Unbelievable.

dualstow wrote: Unbelievable.

I always operate under the assumption that the police are predators who wish to hurt me and my family, but who are mostly untouchable absent the most egregious and obvious evidence, which is why it makes sense that they would destroy the cameras. I similarly assume that prosecutors and judges are mostly in bed with the police, owing to their shared stake in keeping their cushy jobs that create and support the prison-industrial complex. So every search warrant will be approved, all the evidence against the police will be deemed inadmissible, and the general aura of trustworthiness in the system and its agents will be constantly bolstered by the trappings of the process itself.

If I operated a retail store of this nature, I would have cameras that constantly uploaded their streams to a remote server to prevent such mischief from being effective. And in fact, I don't want to ever run a retail operation partially out of fear of the police. Those are the realistic, Harry-Browne-approved answers.

The ideological question, of course, is, is this the kind of thing that ought to happen? Probably most people would say no, but at the same time, what solution can be envisioned when the "checks and balances" are revealed to have been replaced with cronyism and collaboration?

There are times that current events make the people that sort of chuckle and roll their eyes when libertarians get angry that "government is just a big protection racket" look sort of like idiots.

This is one of those times.



And I'm not trying to pretend I'm not in that eye-rolling group.

Pointedstick wrote: If I operated a retail store of this nature, I would have cameras that constantly uploaded their streams to a remote server to prevent such mischief from being effective. And in fact, I don't want to ever run a retail operation partially out of fear of the police. Those are the realistic, Harry-Browne-approved answers.

So......long term this is how I expect the market to solve the problem of theft and murder. There is no way to eliminate this stuff completely but obviously the government is an awful failure in this like it is everywhere. Voluntary cooperation and the market provides solutions.

The streaming video idea is in my opinion where the market will head. Maybe something else will come along that's better. Eventually I think everyone will have the option of having a camera on their person...maybe in their eyeballs and the data stream will be uploaded. Cameras will get cheaper and smaller and storage space larger etc. Undetectable cameras will be everywhere to protect property and persons and people will know anything they do that's wrong will be brought to light.

Already the use of cell phone cameras has really made it difficult for state thugs to act like brigands. It will only get more difficult imo.

Did you see the article today about the widow who had her home stolen by Pennsylvania over $6.30 in back taxes? The judge upheld the auction sale because she had ample letters sent demanding the $6.30. She sid her husband used to handle this and didn't understand.

The house is valued at 280k.

PointedStick wrote:I always operate under the assumption that the police are predators who wish to hurt me and my family

I'm not quite that jaded yet, but maybe someday. I've only had good experiences with cops so far. I don't expect it to last.

Kshartle wrote: Did you see the article today about the widow who had her home stolen by Pennsylvania over $6.30 in back taxes? The judge upheld the auction sale because she had ample letters sent demanding the $6.30. She sid her husband used to handle this and didn't understand.

The house is valued at 280k.

A friend sent it to me, the same guy who sent me the Fred essay on his botched eye. He should really be on this forum, but he's probably busy dodging tornadoes right now.

dualstow wrote:

PointedStick wrote:I always operate under the assumption that the police are predators who wish to hurt me and my family

I'm not quite that jaded yet, but maybe someday. I've only had good experiences with cops so far. I don't expect it to last.

I can't recall ever having a positive experience with a police officer acting in their official capacity. I have been robbed, insulted, and threatened, though. Maybe it'll be different now that I've moved to a purple state. Those blue state cops have been brutal.

I read my son old books that often depict police officers as kindly old men who just want to help you, usually with your problems that are entirely non-criminal in nature. It's an odd and jarring contrast to the militarized warrior cop culture of today, and I find myself avoiding these books just because I don't want to set him up to innocently ask a cop for help only to wind up in handcuffs with taser burns.

Pointedstick wrote:

dualstow wrote:

PointedStick wrote:I always operate under the assumption that the police are predators who wish to hurt me and my family

I'm not quite that jaded yet, but maybe someday. I've only had good experiences with cops so far. I don't expect it to last.

I can't recall ever having a positive experience with a police officer acting in their official capacity. I have been robbed, insulted, and threatened, though. Maybe it'll be different now that I've moved to a purple state. Those blue state cops have been brutal.

I read my son old books that often depict police officers as kindly old men who just want to help you, usually with your problems that are entirely non-criminal in nature. It's an odd and jarring contrast to the militarized warrior cop culture of today, and I find myself avoiding these books just because I don't want to set him up to innocently ask a cop for help only to wind up in handcuffs with taser burns.

You think blue state cops would be better than red state cops?

What's the difference between red, blue, and purple?













Your Grip. ahahahaha


I wish there was a clear state.

Kshartle wrote: What's the difference between red, blue, and purple?













Your Grip. ahahahaha


I wish there was a clear state.

Clear... I think that's an anarchist color, right?

Somalia's wonderful this time of year .

moda0306 wrote: You think blue state cops would be better than red state cops?

The opposite; I'm skeptical that red state cops would be worse to someone like me.

My observation is that right-leaning people believe that the government should oppress outsiders, so I would expect red-state cops to oppress people who can be easily "othered:" racial minorities, immigrants, people with funny accents, drug users, punks, rebels, etc. Since I don't fit in any of those groups, my expectation is that I will be mostly left alone, or at least not oppressed as badly.

By contrast, my observation is that left-leaning people (myself formerly included) are much more amenable to the idea that government should mold the culture and behavior of the insiders far more than outsiders, and of course, the only the tools that the government has to accomplish this are are laws and the police. This seems to foster a real "us versus them" mentality where police view themselves as apart from and superior to the general population, which is exacerbated by gun control laws that grant police the ability to legally own and use firearms prohibited to the general population, further reinforcing their sense of superiority.

Pointedstick wrote: I find myself avoiding these books just because I don't want to set him up to innocently ask a cop for help only to wind up in handcuffs with taser burns.

Sounds like a good idea for a children's book parody!

moda0306 wrote: Clear... I think that's an anarchist color, right?

Somalia's wonderful this time of year .

Similar temp and humidity to central-west florida where i'm at.

Pity it's not anarchist. They have tons of rulers.

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: You think blue state cops would be better than red state cops?

The opposite; I'm skeptical that red state cops would be worse to someone like me.

My observation is that right-leaning people believe that the government should oppress outsiders, so I would expect red-state cops to oppress people who can be easily "othered:" racial minorities, immigrants, people with funny accents, drug users, punks, rebels, etc. Since I don't fit in any of those groups, my expectation is that I will be mostly left alone, or at least not oppressed as badly.

By contrast, my observation is that left-leaning people (myself formerly included) are much more amenable to the idea that government should mold the culture and behavior of the insiders far more than outsiders, and of course, the only the tools that the government has to accomplish this are are laws and the police. This seems to foster a real "us versus them" mentality where police view themselves as apart from and superior to the general population, which is exacerbated by gun control laws that grant police the ability to legally own and use firearms prohibited to the general population, further reinforcing their sense of superiority.

That's what I meant.

And your answer was a good one.

I interned at college for a DC area police department. Part of the perks is I got to go on lots of ride-a-longs with the officers. I usually picked the night shifts because they were the most action packed.

I rode with cops that would walk into a convenience store and start grabbing candy bars, donuts, and coffee and then tell me to help myself. I went to the counter to pay and he said I didn't have to do that and he walked right out without. I paid anyway and then left.

It is far more common than people think. The owner of the store didn't care because it meant that cops were likely to come to his place more so he had less chance of armed robbery. So the giving away of free candy, etc. was protection money.

In academia criminology, these cops are called "grass eaters." They browse around doing fairly minor corruption things. I saw it happen a lot.

Eventually though they likely turn into "meat eaters." Those are the cops doing the really bad stuff and going big time crooked.

My experience with police is that I'd trust a Red State cop more than a Blue State cop myself. A lot of big city departments are also plagued with affirmative action hiring rules so they bring in the dregs and reject better qualified candidates. The feedback loop is intense.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Clear... I think that's an anarchist color, right?

Somalia's wonderful this time of year .

Similar temp and humidity to central-west florida where i'm at.

Pity it's not anarchist. They have tons of rulers.

So the definition of an anarchist society is one where NOBODY rules over ANYONE else, ever?  What if there is 1 murder every year?  Is that an anarchist society?

I think the attitudes/actions of cops depend on the department. I rode along with cops in my city for 16 years as a police chaplain. They wouldn't even take a free bag of fries offered to them at a fast food joint when we stopped to eat. I did hear comments from citizens that their interaction with our local department was much different than they had experienced other places.

There certainly is an us vs. them mentality at police departments however. Part of that comes from the fact that cops get lied to all day every day. After awhile they stop trusting anyone.

(ps I live in a blue state but our city and county are red.)

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Clear... I think that's an anarchist color, right?

Somalia's wonderful this time of year .

Similar temp and humidity to central-west florida where i'm at.

Pity it's not anarchist. They have tons of rulers.

So the definition of an anarchist society is one where NOBODY rules over ANYONE else, ever?  What if there is 1 murder every year?  Is that an anarchist society?

Good Greif man.

I'll go you one further. Since society doesn't really exist there is no such thing as an anarchist society, or any other society for that matter and never can be. It's all just an idea in our heads.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Similar temp and humidity to central-west florida where i'm at.

Pity it's not anarchist. They have tons of rulers.

So the definition of an anarchist society is one where NOBODY rules over ANYONE else, ever?  What if there is 1 murder every year?  Is that an anarchist society?

Good Greif man.

I'll go you one further. Since society doesn't really exist there is no such thing as an anarchist society, or any other society for that matter and never can be. It's all just an idea in our heads.

Society may not have a conscience, or any moral autonomy, but it surely does exist.  A herd of buffalo exists.  A flock of birds exists.  A pride of lions exists.  We can argue about choice and consciousness, or what EXACTLY they consist of, but these things do exist.  They behave in ways, generally, that are different than just a sum of their parts.  It serves us well to understand these phenomenon better, even if the phenomenon don't have a consciousness of their own.

But if your right, and ideas don't exist, then maybe morality doesn't exist!  It's all just an idea in our heads.  We move around thrashing about, and sometimes our thrashings interact and one party suffers something we might call "pain."  It's just a bunch of worthless ideas, right? 

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: So the definition of an anarchist society is one where NOBODY rules over ANYONE else, ever?  What if there is 1 murder every year?  Is that an anarchist society?

Good Greif man.

I'll go you one further. Since society doesn't really exist there is no such thing as an anarchist society, or any other society for that matter and never can be. It's all just an idea in our heads.

Society may not have a conscience, or any moral autonomy, but it surely does exist.  A herd of buffalo exists.  A flock of birds exists.  A pride of lions exists.  We can argue about choice and consciousness, or what EXACTLY they consist of, but these things do exist.  They behave in ways, generally, that are different than just a sum of their parts.  It serves us well to understand these phenomenon better, even if the phenomenon don't have a consciousness of their own.

But if your right, and ideas don't exist, then maybe morality doesn't exist!  It's all just an idea in our heads.  We move around thrashing about, and sometimes our thrashings interact and one party suffers something we might call "pain."  It's just a bunch of worthless ideas, right? 

Best if we don't hijack this thread. The herd, the flock and the pride don't exist in reality though, they're just our individual ideas about what constitutes such a thing.  Remember when you agreed with this concept? http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... /#msg92754

The point is words aren't magical. They can't on their own create things that don't exist. The idea that a society can be anarchist is a generalization that a group (subjective amount) of people can interact without some group of individuals dominating and forcing the others and the general moral reasoning being that it's wrong for humans to force others. The concept is just a generalization made for convenience. If a murder occurred in this theoretical group of humans, it wouldn't nullify the concept since that's all it was anyway......a concept.

Maybe we shouldn't hijack this thread though, but it's obvious that Somalia is nothing like a theoretical anarchist society.

Kshartle wrote:The idea that a society can be anarchist is a generalization that a group (subjective amount) of people can interact without some group of individuals dominating and forcing the others and the general moral reasoning being that it's wrong for humans to force others. [emphasis added]

Sorry, there's no such thing as groups.  That's just an idea in your head.  Your sentences are meaningless, because words aren't magical.

Kshartle, don't take the bait!

lol

Xan wrote: Sorry, there's no such thing as groups.  That's just an idea in your head.  Your sentences are meaningless, because words aren't magical.

Sorry, there's no such thing as ideas.

Pointedstick wrote: Kshartle, don't take the bait!

Refraining.