From: one-if-by-land@concord.com   
      
   "Kris Krieger"  wrote in message   
   news:13s6f4o59joh603@corp.supernews.com...   
   > "Don"  wrote in   
   > news:fpv9me02bbq@news5.newsguy.com:   
   >   
   >>   
   >> "Warm Worm"  wrote in message   
   >> news:fpv4ii$2an$1@aioe.org...   
   >>> Don wrote:   
   >>>> "Warm Worm"  wrote in message   
   >>>> news:fpthn6$ca3$1@aioe.org...   
   >>>>> Don wrote:   
   > [snip]   
   >   
   >>>>>> Why change the rules halfway into the game?   
   >>>>>> He works for the state so he can be punished by the state.   
   >>>>>> Overall though I agree with the sentiment.   
   >>>>>> Abolish the state, turn all incarcerations over to private   
   >>>>>> entities and let them figure it out.   
   >>>>>> We'd all be better off.   
   >>>>> Exactly: We could properly take care of that woman without the   
   >>>>> hassle of videos, public cops, public scrutiny, freedom of info,   
   >>>>> state shitcans, or anyone knowing anything about anyone's business   
   >>>>> in that case or any other. People should do 100% what they want. ;D   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You keep saying *we* and I don't see how that figures into it.   
   >>>   
   >>> But you just said, "We'd all be better off."   
   >>>   
   >>> Make up your mind.   
   >>   
   >> ???   
   >> I think we'd be better off without a tyrannical monopoly on force, and   
   >> from that you transpose that we should take care of people?   
   >> Amazing.   
   >>   
   >   
   > I think that what's mroe interesting is the question of hwat sorts of   
   > people enter various security services.  THere are some poeple who relaly   
   > do think it's the right thing to do because they honestly are at least   
   > *trying* to assist innocent people (i.e. people who are not out to harm   
   > others).  OTOH, you also get a fair number of agressive types, and a fair   
   > number of people who simply want to exert power, however temporary and,   
   > really, petty it might be, and then you alwayse get some who want to harm   
   > others but seek to do so from behind a smokescreen of legitimacy.   
   >   
   > Some people are protective by nature and really do try to "protect and   
   > serve", and there is nothing worng with that.  THe problem is that,   
   > whetehr in law enforcement, business, politics, and every other sphere of   
   > life, they seem to be fighting a losing battle agansit those who use the   
   > smokescreen of legitimacy to hide their lust for power and control.   
      
   What you're finding is that when there is little to no accountability to a   
   bad behavior that behavior will expand.   
   In the private sector bad behavior is not routinely ignored or rewarded as   
   it tends to effect the bottom line negatively of the company.   
   In the gov't there is very little in the way of accountability and in many   
   cases the perpetrators of bad behavior are rewarded.   
   The gov't steals what it wants and bad behavior has no effect on its bottom   
   line.   
   (ask yourself, 'Is a thief concerned that one or all of his employees are   
   also murderers?')   
   Its pretty much routine in these cases for the police chief to stand up in   
   front of the cameras and claim some silly excuse as to why something   
   happened.   
   The most common word used is *misjudgement*.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)