Police Abuse

What is Wrong with the New York Times? Cops Not Bothering Minorities a Possible 'Civil Rights Violation'


NYPD police brutality

A few weeks ago, cops with the New York Police Department unilaterally pulled back on enforcing petty laws, making arrests only when "necessary." Citations for things like traffic and drug offenses plummeted. The violent crime rate did not see a concurrent spike. New York City is not slipping into chaos.

And as a matter of basic logic, because cops are no longer interacting with residents in poor and marginalized communities over petty laws that often affect those communities disproportionately, there are bound to be fewer instances of the use of excessive force by cops. In the aftermath of Ferguson, some attention was paid into the way police departments in the St. Louis area treated their jurisdictions like nothing more than revenue streams.

Except for the admittedly not insignificant problem of security forces dismissing the authority of the civilian leadership, there's a lot of good coming out of this. We don't know how many people weren't subjected to the indignity of an unnecessary police interaction because of this "work stoppage." But by virtue of there being fewer police interactions over non-violent crimes and fewer "unnecessary" arrests, we can surmise there have been fewer civil rights violations, fewer unconstitutional policing. And yet, The New York Times still can't get over that cops would dare not enforce all the laws imposed on poor and marginalized communities. The editorial board is calling for the mayor to start firing police commanders until unnecessary arrests and enforcement of petty laws goes up. And they want him to even more:

He should invite the Justice Department to determine if the police are guilty of civil rights violations in withdrawing policing from minority communities.

That's right. The New York Times believes when cops refuse to enforce petty laws and make unnecessary arrests in minority communities, that's a civil rights violation. If that isn't whitesplaining qua whitesplaining I don't know what is. The Times couldn't be more wrong on this issue and the editorial board's insistence to keep harping on the "injustice" of police officers limiting often tense interactions over inherently non-violent behavior in poor and marginalized, largely minority, communities borders on the delusional, and is certainly reckless.

NEXT: 10 Things the New GOP Congress Should—and Can!—Do

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What is Wrong with the New York Times?

    Lol, is that a serous question? Please read the comments in NYT, it’s a textbook on what it’s like to be a clueless east coast liberal.

    1. Serious. Edit feature, bitches, or no donations next year.

    2. Maybe they should get out of their ivory towers and see what the view from an ebony tower is like.

      1. Taller building = higher vantage point?

        1. Taller Building = easier to look down on people.

          1. Ebony towers are well-endowed.

    3. Well said. The NYT is one of the most corrupt media outlets in the country.

  2. What a horrible rag.

  3. Hyper-square and elitist strongholds like the NYT run on the gasoline of rules.

    When order is your god anarchy is just a couple of minor arrests away from sweeping over the establishment paragon.

  4. Who will enforce the retarded cigarette tax? Who will explain to grieving widows that their husbands died because the government artificially inflated the price of cigarettes and the obvious-to-a-child consequence of black markets* resulted?


    1. Who will assault and choke people to death over $5.89 in revenue to the state?

      1. Fool. The man died because he resisted arrest. Obviously you are too ignorant to grasp that simple fact.

        1. But why was he being arrested?

          1. Because he should’ve known better than to be black and make a police officer fear for his safety! Jeez, don’t you read?

  5. I bet the NYPD and de Blasio resolve their current dispute with a deal, one of whose clauses will require the cops to resume unnecessary arrests.

  6. Now I will know that whenever some pig says “don’t blame me, I have to enforce the laws as written,” I will suppress the urge to say “then I guess you want the NYPD officers who refuse to enforce the laws as written, to be fired?”

    Because I don’t want to be as full of holes as a swiss cheese.

    1. I’m sure they’d let you off with a severe beating, unless they’re, in a bad mood.

  7. “What is Wrong with the New York Times?”

    Do you have a while?

    1. Not exactly. But I do have time for “what is right with the New York Times”.

      1. The NYT crossword is the best in the world.

  8. You don’t understand. Alls the NYT wants is for minorities to receive just the right amount of harassment proportional to what their white counterparts receiver. Social justice!

    1. In this case, “white counterparts” do *not* include NYT staffers.

      1. Well, most of the NYT staff has never dealt with cops. They come from sheltered upper middle class or wealthy families who send them to Ivy League schools where they then get their job in the media. So, most of them can’t even form such a nasty thought simply because they are completely ignorant that middle class and poor whites get it, too.

  9. The New York Times is a purely statist organism. Calling them a left-wing paper is not really true because they are only left-wing when that allows them to discuss the wonder of the state. On the other hand, they also support right-wing policies when it allows them to discuss the wonder of the state.]

    Remember their support of the Iraq War? Hell, when’s the last time the New York Times was opposed to any war?

    Here’s the New York Times breathlessly supporting the incompetent Libya intervention that made that country even worse off than it was under Qaddafi.

    There is no perfect formula for military intervention. It must be used sparingly ? not in Bahrain or Yemen, even though we condemn the violence against protesters in both countries. Libya is a specific case: Muammar el-Qaddafi is erratic, widely reviled, armed with mustard gas and has a history of supporting terrorism. If he is allowed to crush the opposition, it would chill pro-democracy movements across the Arab world.

    Well, thank God we put a stop to that and democracy subsequently flourished in both Libya and broader Arabia!

    The Times is grossly incompetent and whatever direction the Times editorial board argues we should go, we should gleefully walk the other way.

    1. To continue, they publish David Brooks, Paul Krugman, and Thomas Friedman.

      What do these wildly divergent individuals have in common? A joyous love of state power and government. Brooks adores anyone with a large enough cult of personality and created hilariously fascist sounding terms like ‘National Greatness Conservatism.’ Friedman is an apologist for Chinese Communists and various other autocracies. Krugman’s views on economics are well documented.

      If you love government, no matter in what form your love takes shape, they will publish you.

    2. Time for a triple post, because I just discovered the New York Times writing this back in November:

      Saving Libya, Again

      Well, we did a great job the first time.

      The model for this intervention should be a version of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force that was created to stem the Taliban in Afghanistan, supplemented with intelligence and logistical support from the United States. Its initial mandate would be to buttress the internationally recognized government in Tobruk by protecting vital infrastructure and state institutions, keeping militias apart by preventing them from traveling to rival territory and controlling the flow of arms. Although Libya’s territory is vast, most of the new force’s operations would be confined to the coastal strip, where the main government institutions are located, necessitating only a few thousand soldiers.

      So they advocated the original Libyan intervention, belatedly admit that Libya is a chaotic realm of despotic warlords due largely to our actions, and then argue that we should militarily intervene again.

      Classic New York Times.

      I also love the argument that ‘it will only necessitate a few thousand soldiers.’

      And World War I will be over by Christmas.

      1. I guess they saw Black Hawk Down and said ‘ooh I want that again!’.

        They description they provide is so…clinical and thoughtless. ‘Protect vital state infrastructure’ -sounds so nice. Why are we doing this? Which infrastructure is this? Details, mere details. We have soundbites to write.

    3. I would label the Times Democrat. They are Baby-Boomer style proggies. Who among the liberals opposed the Iraq War? Not their elected officials and not their mainstream rags. But they are definitely ‘progressives.’ Even the younger generation of proggies has become incredibly statist in their rhetoric with Obama’s election. Government is people! It’s us! That’s the modern rallying cry of even young millenials hipster douches these days.

      The same ‘reverence’ for the law pops up whenever it is convenient for the progressives. The Bundy situation and here. But the NYT casts aside all that when it needs to make an argument for pushing the progressive statist agenda.

      It’s like Obama calling this a nation of laws when he doesn’t want to do something politically, but violating or stretching said laws to the breaking point when he sees fit. It’s a nation of law unless they don’t like the laws. Then said laws (or even the Constitution) become stupid deadweight.

      The Obama admin has seen the blending of the two generations of progressives. We are left with the worst of both.

      1. So, that’s not ‘liberal,’ but I don’t know if there’s much approaching reasonableness on the left anymore. Either way, I refuse to call the modern left ‘liberal.’

        1. Yeah, but the actual left has opposed a lot of these wars the NYT has trumpeted. Moreover, the actual left is not a particularly big fan of the NYPD.

          Do you really think American progressives would be happy about sending thousands of troops to Libya again? I don’t think so, but the Times seems to love the concept.

          1. The NYT turned against the Iraq War as soon as they could hurt Bush with it.

            1. OK, so they’re not always wrong.

              1. So if someone recommends you jump from a plane without a parachute, then changes his mind after you jump, that makes him right?

          2. Do you really think American progressives would be happy about sending thousands of troops to Libya again?

            Honestly, at this point, maybe I’m more cynical than you, but I’d say it depends. If it would hail Obama as the conquering hero? Probably, yes. Sorry, but with these guys it’s all about principals and not principles. And there’s nothing inherent in progressivism that is anti-war.

    4. “The New York Times is a purely statist organism.”

      ^ This, also auto correct always considers “Statist” a misspelled word.

      Irish if you are not a writer, you should be.

  10. It could be argued that the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure implies the right to have reasonable searches and seizures. Also a sidewalk full of loiterers creates a de facto violation of the right to peaceably assemble.

    1. You could argue that. But then you would be retarded.

      1. There is a right to unreasonable search and seizure; and then there is force. Its not a correlation.

        1. *be free from

    2. Loitering laws as applied to public sidewalks are unconstitutional (a business or a person can have you trespassed for loitering on their private property, but the state has no such right). So no, it doesn’t “create a defacto violation of the right to peaceably assemble”.

    3. right to have reasonable searches and seizures.

      No it doesn’t. The right to be free of unreasonable searches implies no such mirrored right. All it implies is that reasonable searches may happen. If the state has crossed its Ts and dotted its Is, then they may perform a reasonable search, but I am not enjoying my “right” to that search.

  11. What is Wrong with the New York Times? Cops Not Bothering Minorities a Possible ‘Civil Rights Violation’

    As a liberal and a NY-er, I have to agree.

    I want the COPS to perpetually continue this slowdown as it will actually help the relationship between the police and the black/latino community.

    1. and some of the white blue collar and white lower class groups that no one ever talks about that really doesn’t care for the cops.

    2. You won’t be saying that when black on black jaywalking goes out of control and the Police refuse to step in.

    3. What would help the black/Latino community would be for them to stop glorifying criminals and burning down local businesses, fool. People like you make me ill.

    4. Right. Now, if only poor white trash were being abused by cops, then it would be totally different.

  12. I’m sure Eric Garner is turning over in his grave over this ongoing violation.

    1. “Oh, *now* you’ve stopped making unnecessary arrests? Great timing, guys!”

      1. That’s a good one !

      2. How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

        I guess you don’t ask, you just kill him and then stop the mistake.

        1. I can’t even…..breathe.

  13. “He should invite the Justice Department to determine if the police are guilty of civil rights violations in withdrawing policing from minority communities.”

    That’s right. The New York Times believes when cops refuse to enforce petty laws and make unnecessary arrests in minority communities, that’s a civil rights violation.

    To be fair, Ed, there is a difference (at least in theory) between “withdrawing policing” and “refusing to enforce petty laws and make unnecessary arrests”.

    Of course, it wouldn’t surprise me if the DOJ found that, um, insufficient policing of *any* neighborhood is a “civil rights violation”.

    1. 911 is a joke, not a right.

    2. I reckon the Police internal dialogue now goes something like this:

      “Hey look at the guy XYZ doing something fairly trivial. Do I really need to step in a confront/harass him? Not really. Ok, keep on truckin'”

      If so, this has all been an excellent learning opportunity.

      1. There are a lot of police officers that use that internal dialogue all the time. They call those laws “chickenshit” laws and don’t waste their time or take the risk of a potentially violent confrontation (if only because of all the paperwork that will create for them) for a violation that doesn’t really harm anyone. Believe it or not, there are a lot of police out there who question the Garner case for this reason.


        1. “Chickenshit” is one of the best words ever invented. Really captures the essence.

          But also unfortunately, a fair amount of internal dialogue appears to go like: “Hey look at the guy XYZ doing something fairly trivial. Do I really need to step in a confront/harass him? Not really, but I’ve gotta make my quota and if I’m lucky, he’ll be a smart ass and I can fuck him up legit.”

  14. All these protests, and where are the folks calling for the private production of security? This is the only way liberty can be respected is through individuals voluntarily choosing and funding these services, and protecting themselves.

    How in the hell could a coercive monopoly (police) that receives it’s money through extortion be said to protect the rights of individuals? The “oh but we need the government” crowd still can’t justify what amounts to slavery and violence through a govt that will never “limit” itself, or have others impose limits upon it. Extortion by the state that funds the police violates the NAP. Especially when folks peacefully revoke their consent to be governed and extorted and wish to engage only in voluntary transactions between consenting individuals and businesses. Kind of like Garner and those who chose to be no longer extorted through cigarette taxes. Sadly, the ultimate price for not paying the extortion rate was death.

    Oh but Anarchy is chaos!? Bullshit. Look at the chaos many families must go through for having their loved ones jailed and murdered by the state and it’s minions for wanting to be free while doing no harm to others.

    I hope many peacefully opt out of govt and the services that exist through extortion. I hope the Minarchists stop lying to themselves and advocating others be forced into a system of slavery govt that will never limit itself as shown countless times throughout history.

    1. I’d rather deal with a bunch of government cops than a bunch of George Zimmermans. I’m sorry but I have to disagree with you.

      1. Zimmerman is just a wannabe cop. A costume would not make him any better.

      2. George Zimmerman was a private police officer paid by a community to patrol the area?

        Who knew?

        1. Not paid. I am not opposed to private police forces, if they are accountable.

          1. That was a response to Alice.

            1. No problem.

      3. Alice. Your disagreement and want for a violent monopoly to operate with “qualified immunity” and to be shielded from consequenses and voices of free individuals in a market is nonsensical. Would you go over to your neighbor and shake them down to fund whatever you desire? No, because you would face consequences. So because one wears a costume, you’re that deluded, and believe it’s magically ok for them to extort folks or engage in violence?

        Your Zimmerman comparison is terrible. How many cops shoot people, or their dogs, and get put on a desk job in where the affected family is still forced to pay the salary of the individual that murdered their family member? Folks like Zimmerman would be a liability to a security firm. Individuals in the market would pull their funding from such a business, and such an individual would be considered rogue and individuals would repel an aggressor.

        When a cop killed Garner, consumers couldn’t pull their funding, and instead reward a more responsible company that respects the liberty of individuals. They are forced to fund a company against their will no matter the performance. How would you feel if walmart beat the shit out of you for shopping at k-mart, and demanded you pay your “taxes” or else they will confiscate your property? But so long as someone wears a fancy suit or costume and is a govt agent, it’s ok to submit to them and obey like a good slave?

        1. I like wearing a leather suit when i dominate my slaves.

          its more showy

      4. There is no difference. If you want to make cops accountable you have to get rid of their union. Do you want to dissolve the officers union?

          1. Public sector employees, as well as welfare recipients, should be denied the right to vote.

      5. Alice,

        Please watch the video available through the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0rwgQgCYh8

        A Threat Management Center, not a group of “wanna-be” cops, is the type of organization many of us advocate.



      6. At least the law put Zimmerman on trial,
        no cops in recent history of brutality and sociopathic violence have had to suffer even that much scrutiny

    2. Oh but Anarchy is chaos!? Bullshit. Look at the chaos many families must go through for having their loved ones jailed and murdered by the state and it’s minions for wanting to be free while doing no harm to others.

      Anarchy is still worse.

      You cannot have freedom without government.

      1. “You cannot have freedom without government.”
        And if you don’t pay the government, they take your freedom away. I guess you’re right!

      2. “You cannot have freedom without government.”

        “Anarchy is still worse”

        absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

        1. Because paying tribute to the most powerful warlord, in order to conduct your affairs is Liberty.

          1. If that was for me, bear in mind that I’m too lazy, to post sarc tabs. Or snark tabs, for that matter.

          2. If you’d like to, of course in an anarchy that is your choice to become a subject of someone else.

            i prefer to be left to my own devices, and to stay far away from any corrupt fucks seeking power and dominion over others

      3. because godverment grants us all our rights and liberty, shit i forgot how the bigger it gets the more freedom i have.


    3. but but but, poor communities could not afford to hire private security. Who would serve and protect them?

      Sarc/ i know i know. They’d provide for their own protection, just as millions of Americans do despite having a government provided police force. If you have the resources, you can hire someone to do for you that which you’d otherwise do for yourself. Way of the world, regardless of state intervention.

  15. Respect our authoratah!

    1. And if I don’t?

      1. We will turn our back to you the next time you give a speech.

  16. He should invite the Justice Department to determine if the police are guilty of civil rights violations in withdrawing policing from minority communities.

    Haha, that will get the police back on his side.

  17. This kind of garbage from the NYT is precisely what drove me from the ranks of standard American liberalism. I don’t fault rank-and-file liberals; I honestly think they have worthy intentions and goals. But, damn; there is just so much paternalism it’s not even funny. They just can’t seem to get that perhaps people just want to be left alone. Who in their right mind can honestly think that NOT cracking skulls for minor, non-violent offenses is somehow a rights violation?

    1. I agree. I hope the police do a slowdown FOREVER !!!

      I’m even willing to pay the pensions of the existing cops and stop hiring new ones and let them sit around and eat donuts then have them go back to “broken window policing”

      1. They’ll end their tantrum soon, sadly.

      2. Well Alice I’ll tell you what. Stop voting for politicians who impose stupid laws upon people. We may agree that the police “slow down” is a good thing, but the police abuse upon the public is your doing in the first place.

      3. Alice its not just police that abuse their power. Extend that thinking to the whole of government and, if you do, all you end up with is modern libertarianism/classical liberal theory that makes any sense. Extend that thinking to markets, charity, etc. The goverment can’t provide effectively and be accountable to the people. Its up to the whole of the people and our actions to take care of the sick, weak, etc.

        1. its up to the people and its our responsibility to take care of the sick, weak, etc. That sounds better.

          1. *People not the government.

      4. If youre willing to pay them to do nothing does that mean youre willing to accept that they are un-nessecary?

        do you finally get that the government is the problem?

        are you ready to wake up and join us?

      5. I hope that the next time you are mugged or beaten that the police continue their slowdown. You are a useless twit.

        1. Chances are your beating will be administered by the police as they enforce petty laws that make anything you do or think a crime. I wish they would investigate and prevent actual crimes like a mugging or a beating but they are too busy writing tickets and sending SWAT raids for victimless “crimes”

        2. They really are good at solving those crimes. Just look at the murder statistics.


    2. walkthejosh|1.6.15 @ 11:11PM|#
      …”I don’t fault rank-and-file liberals; I honestly think they have worthy intentions and goals.”…

      Often enough, this is the specific reason most of us here have no truck with liberals:
      Yes, the “intent” (as stated) might be of value, but the actual result of the effort is commonly ignored by liberals.
      See, for example, O-care. Costs are rising more rapidly than before, by even the best accounts, the monstrous new bureaucracy has enrolled very few of the target population, the intrusion into personal privacy is immense, and yet the left refuses to admit it is a failure.
      It was *meant well*.

      1. Just like the War on (some) Drugs.

    3. I was just thinking about this on my drive in to work. There are 2 types of liberals. The brainless, with their worthy intentions and goals, who support policies and programs that, at best, do not work, and mostly do harm to those they intend to help. Then there’s the heartless. The ones who see oppression where it does not exist or simply divide people into groups to pit a majority against a minority for political expediency. They have no empathy or no care to understand the issues from certain points of view (business owners, cis white men, libertarians, etc) and they don’t care if policies are designed specifically to harm certain groups so long as it caters to the majority they’ve created via class warfare rhetoric or the minority-majority strategy (race card, war on women).

  18. OT:
    “Ground broken for state’s high-speed rail project”

    But there is hope:
    “While high-speed rail backers made speeches and signed a symbolic section of rail in lieu of cutting a ribbon or wielding golden shovels, a new Congress whose Republican majority has vowed not to contribute more federal funding to California’s high-speed rail project took office in Washington.”
    The stupid party might do right, maybe, we hope.

    1. I live in Fresno where its going to start. No one is happy with this except politicians. I work in construction and would specifically benefit from this in the short term. Its fucking stupid and thats the general consensus from other people that are in the industry and live around here.

    2. Monorail!

  19. To the cops.


    Love, The Citizens. =)

    1. They just can’t stop loving us!

      1. Who ?? The cop, or the Citizens ? =)

        1. Well, a lot of people love cops, and cops have their own way, of expressing “love”. Or, maybe I need to go to bed.

          1. Well go to bed, and by all means do not dream of “cop love” =)

          2. I saw you standing on the corner
            You looked so big and fine
            I really wanted to go out with you
            So when you smiled, I laid my heart on the line

            You read me my rights and then you said
            “Let’s go” And nothing more
            I thought of my nights, and how they were
            They were filled with

            I know you wouldn’t go
            You’d watch my heart burst then you’d step in
            I had to know so I asked
            You just had to laugh

            We sat in the night
            With my hands cuffed at my side
            I look at your life and your style
            Wanted nothing more

            I know you wouldn’t go
            You’d watch my heart burst then you’d step in
            I had to know so I asked
            You just had to laugh

            Walking the line, you were a marksman
            Told me that law, like wine is ageless, public defender
            You had to admit
            You wanted the love of a sex offender

            I know you wouldn’t go
            You’d watch my heart burst then you’d step in
            I had to know so I asked
            You just had to laugh

            My vision in blue
            I call you from inside my cell
            And in the trial, you were there
            With your badge and rubber boots

            I think all the time how
            I’m going to perpetrate love with you
            And when I get out
            There’s no doubt I’ll be sex offensive to you

            Read more: Blondie – X Offender Lyrics | MetroLyrics

            1. I think I saw you in an ice-cream parlor
              drinking milk shakes cold and long
              Smiling and waving and looking so fine
              don’t think you knew you were in this song

  20. But Ed, not enforcing those petty laws deprives minorities of the benificence of government regulation, which we all know is an unalloyed good that only protects people from, evil, greedy, capitalists. Now those poor minorities are at the mercy of untempered market forces such as people driving cabs without a medallion and renting out rooms in their home without permission. Think of the rapacious low prices and dog-eat-dog competition that will occur without the police arresting people for engaging in reckless, unsanctioned, vontunary exchange.

    1. But Ed, not enforcing those petty laws deprives minorities of the benificence of government regulation

      Actually, those minority communities are paying lots of taxes for police services, and I suspect most of the residents of those communities actually want those services and they do want to be protected from thugs like Brown.

      Now those poor minorities are at the mercy of untempered market forces

      If they only were so lucky. Unfortunately, there is no private market in policing in the US; it’s either the shitty government supplied police or no police at all.

      1. Yes any second now a veritable army of Browns are going to spring up because the NYPD isn’t Stop N Frisking hard enough.

        it’s either the shitty government supplied police or no police at all.

        False dichotomy.

        1. Yes any second now a veritable army of Browns are going to spring up because the NYPD isn’t Stop N Frisking hard enough.

          They don’t need to “spring up”, they are already there: violent crime is much more common in black communities than in white ones.

          False dichotomy.

          Really? If that dichotomy is false, there must be a third alternative, another way in which black communities can get police protection. Why don’t you explain what that would be. We’re not talking about hypothetical alternatives, we’re talking about what choices are realistically open to poor black communities today.

          1. because not enforcing petty crimes is the same as not policing crime itself?

            reading comprehension sir!

            1. The NYT is complaining about withdrawing policing, not refusing to enforce petty laws.

              Reading comprehension indeed.

          2. If there was a law on the books making it a crime for non-government bakeries to make bread, I’m quite positive that you could not imagine a world where someone other than government supplied bread to the masses.

            1. I’m not disagreeing with your point but I think he may be saying that the black communities either have government police forces or no police forces because it is illegal to have a private police force. They don’t have any other options right now. In your example it would be easy to imagine a world where someone else supplied the bread but it would also get you thrown in a rape cage if you baked the bread yourself.

              He may also be a statist fuck but his point that those communities don’t have any other option other than the government police force is essentially correct. A private one would be far superior but they don’t have that option.

              1. I’m not even so sure these people have a government police force. Do you really think the cops investigate crime? Or do they look at calls as opportunities to bust the people who were naive enough to ask them for help? That’s been my experience with the police anyway.

                1. Again, I agree with your point. I was just narrowly agreeing with his argument on the ability of these communities to use anything other than a government police force.

                  I avoid the police as much as possible. Unless I am forced to call them for insurance purposes, I will never involve them in my life purposely. The last time i had to report a theft of my property they had no interest in doing anything because I refused to allow them to search everything I owned. I had something stolen from my car and they wanted to search my house. I refused and they left.

                  1. I had something stolen from my car and they wanted to search my house. I refused and they left.

                    That’s been my experience as well. Call them for help and they want to search for drugs. Refuse and they leave.

                2. Do private security guards investigate crimes? No. Are they helpful and nice people? Often not. They stand around, look menacing, and have guns.

                  Given current laws, the only armed person who can legally stand between you and an armed criminal in NYC is a police man. It’s a financial rip-off and a badly-run government created monopoly, but it’s a monopoly people paid tons of money for, and bad as it is, it’s still the only thing that stands between armed thugs and (by law) unarmed civilians.

                  I’m all for changing the laws, the sooner the better. But taking the money to pay for police, imposing gun control, and then taking off and saying “fend for yourself” is just not acceptable.

            2. I can very much imagine a world with privatized police force; I think we’d be better off in such a world. But that’s not the world we live in today.

              A second problem with your point is that poor communities already have paid for government services and they can’t afford to pay twice for those services.

              For poor communities, right now, it is a real problem when government-run police “withdraw”, because right now they don’t have available alternatives, and they don’t have money to pay two police forces, one that shows up and one that doesn’t.

              My imagination has nothing to do with it. The problem is your disconnect from reality. If you want policing in poor communities to change, you need to create the legal basis for private police forces and reduce taxes first; simply withdrawing police from a poor community and continuing to collect taxes and have the existing laws on the books just makes things worse.

              1. I have a question about private policing. Let’s say I pay one force, and you pay another. Additionally let’s say I can afford the best and most expensive force, while yours is low rent and low budget. Then I go and rob you. You want justice, so you go to your police to have me arrested. I call my better-equipped force to defend me. What happens next?

          3. Don’t argue with the chickenhawk. He uses words he doesn’t understand and throws temper tantrums when you call him on his bullshit.

      2. Most people would pay higher taxes to stop what the cops do.

  21. Cytotoxic|1.6.15 @ 11:38PM|#

    Oh but Anarchy is chaos!? Bullshit. Look at the chaos many families must go through for having their loved ones jailed and murdered by the state and it’s minions for wanting to be free while doing no harm to others.

    “Anarchy is still worse.

    You cannot have freedom without government.”

    That is nonsense. Govt is not a necessary condition for freedom and liberty. In fact, govt is antithetical to freedom and liberty. If you bothered to look up the definition, you’d see they were incompatible. “We need government to violate our rights to protect them” is what ur saying.

    If you wish for someone to put on a costume and dominate and extort you for services, you can pay for a master yourself. For you to advocatee others be forced to do things while hiding behind politicians, who hide behind their arms of the state leads to the enslavement of others. You must force others to “pay” for things against their will, which makes them a slave, violates the NAP and liberty.

    Why don’t you extort your neighbor to pay for your beloved government? Force them to give more than the rate they are currently extorted at. Could it be they’d kick your ass, or worse?

    1. People are so bad we need a government made up of people are so bad we need a government made up of people are so bad we need a government made up of….

      just statist things

      1. :0) Lol.

        Many statists go on about how they support liberty, despise socialism and totalitarianism. Yet they support involuntary govt (of which they believe will limit itself) funded through coercion, theft and ultimately violence, and which also utilizes socialism and totalitarianism in order to function and maintain their control.

        1. How do you have a society without some sort of government? There will always be men who band together and use organized violence to plunder. Since organized violence will always triumph over the individual, the only way to combat organized violence is with organized violence. So either the band of robbers becomes government, or members of society who band together to combat the bands of robbers become government. Either way, there will always be men who use organized violence to plunder (tax). Like Ben Franklin said, there are two things that are certain in life: death and taxes.

  22. “borders on the delusional”…I think they’ve taken the border and now occupy the high ground of delusional, and are now planning on going after “completely fucking nuts”

  23. Duffleblog satire on ROE for cops vs military:


    Fucking great.

    1. “”I’ve always dreamed of joining Albuquerque SWAT,” Staff Sgt. Brian Anderson, currently on his 5th deployment to Afghanistan with the 75th Ranger Regiment, told Duffel Blog. “I just really want to fucking shoot someone.”

  24. What is Wrong with the New York Times?

    How much time do you have? Because to fully answer that question would require several years.

  25. I got Lancia after having made $8688 this month and more than ten-k last-month . this is really the easiest work I’ve ever had . I started this 3 months ago and right away earned more than $84 per/hour .
    Go to this website ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  26. Sarcasmic,

    The tools for self defense have evolved. Ireland lasted well over a millennia under anarchy and private Brehon law. Government is not necessary for a society to function. Natural law and liberty are key to a society that is to be free.

    Because there is no government telling you that you shouldn’t rob or kill your neighbor, is that what keeps you from doing so? You know it’s morally wrong, and you know if you attempted to do so, you might get killed in the process. That is the other thing that keeps you from engaging in such acts.

    Individuals in ancient Ireland wanted to be free, and we’re. The Romans never invaded them, as how can they conquer a people who don’t worship a government and wouldn’t defend it if there were one? England tried many times to conquer individuals in Ireland , and rid it of Brehon law.

    So they should have just let the invaders in to extort them and offer centralized courts, tax collectors that beat them up and law that violated natural law? Nonsense.

  27. With socialism the central planners never efficiently allocate resources. There is no economy with socialism, and it must rely on price signals from private markets so the central planners (never effectively can) set prices, of which they still distort the economy. So how can you say that the security we have now, couldn’t be more effective and efficient if handled by the private production of defense? To say that individuals should be shielded from their choices in defense and security, so that top men in fancy costumes can provide these things, and that these top men are far less violent is nonsensical.

    The record of violence of government versus free societies isn’t even compatible, as governments have a long horrid history of violence against individuals. Look at how many Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians died for just wanting to be peaceful, and free. Yet their singing revolution prevailed. Estonia’s economy and the individuals in it became more successful by becoming freer, not with more central planning and control. Had Estonia removed all of government and been truly free under Libertarian anarchy they would have remained the Baltic tiger. Too bad Art Larr only had free to choose to read instead of Rothbard or a mentor such as Gerard Casey.

    Your desire for government requires the enslavement if others, while those who desire to be free, do not subject you to such bondage.

    1. Your desire for government requires the enslavement if others, while those who desire to be free, do not subject you to such bondage.

      How did you get that from my post?

      My point was not that government is good and wonderful, but that it is inevitable that men will band together and use organized violence to plunder. Isn’t that what government is? People using organized violence to plunder society? I really don’t know how you can, from reading this, infer that I desire men using organized violence for the purpose of plunder.

      All I am saying is that some sort of government is inevitable. Because once men band together to use organized violence for the purpose of plunder, then men will band together to use organized violence to fight them off. Eventually there will be a winner, and that winner will be the new plunderer. Otherwise known as government.

      Again, I fail to see how you can read my post and infer that I desire government.

      1. “How do you have a society without some sort of government?” seemed to me there was the argument that govt is a requirement for society to exist. But it seems I’m wrong in regards to the way you feel. Sorry dude. I’m actually glad because there was going to be a vampire creeping from behind ready to bite into someone’s mothereffin…..cookies!! And some serious dancing upon your statist (well now non statist :0P ) lawn.

        Government is not always inevitable. It’s collapse I believe is. The only issue is not making the mistake of forming a new one. Some of the founders, if they had seen how bad their experiment failed, would have been full fledged anarchists. TJ knew the only way for individuals to be free was without a master (also known as govt).

  28. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.