Minyin Bison

[Nakara]

Incoming a couple more terribly uneducated Boggwin posts after which he will then try to convince everyone he was 'trolling'

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Nakara [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Incoming a couple more terribly uneducated Boggwin posts after which he will then try to convince everyone he was 'trolling'

rofflecopters.

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

Originally Posted by Nakara [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Incoming a couple more terribly uneducated Boggwin posts after which he will then try to convince everyone he was 'trolling'

Please point out how you disagree. By merely stating that my post are uneducated does not make them so. I know it is easier to say so than to actually retort. Nice try.

[Estolcles]

Originally Posted by Japan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's simple: unlike Somalia, we have white people.

Until I take over Somalia.... then there'll be white peeps...

My militia.

But there'll be some blacks and Koreans and Gingers in my militia too...

[Japan]

Originally Posted by Estolcles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Gingers are nonwhite

OKAY YOU KNOW HOW TO TROLL ME NOW

[Nakara]

Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Please point out how you disagree. By merely stating that my post are uneducated does not make them so. I know it is easier to say so than to actually retort. Nice try.

no thanks

[Ihealyou]

Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Please point out how you disagree. By merely stating that my post are uneducated does not make them so. I know it is easier to say so than to actually retort. Nice try.

MY POST ARE UNEDUCATED

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you think people should buy "police insurance" ?
What about your neighbors that can't afford it? "Fuck them!" ..or what?

The debate between ya'll is fascinating...I thought I'd throw in something about this particular comment tho...

Back in the late 90's, a large unincorporated area near me attempted to purchase security service from an armed security agency I worked with, because approximately 14,000 people in an urban setting were covered by a single deputy sheriff. One.

We knew that not everyone could afford the protection, so we designated a "base" figure that we needed in order to provide private police services to the entire area, and set about securing individual guarantees from homeowners and businesses. We had some trouble...not from the state or other expected sources, but from INSURANCE companies...so the idea eventually fell through. It would have worked; the security agreements had already been signed, a majority of both individuals and businesses had agreed to "blanket" protection.

Point is, both state and private agencies can co-exist in providing police protection to the general public. Not only that, it's always been my personal opinion that a PPS could provide better overall protection because there are fewer restrictions -at least in my state - on private police agencies/security agencies - than there are on regular police forces. With good business model you're gold.

Please continue...

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The debate between ya'll is fascinating...I thought I'd throw in something about this particular comment tho...

Back in the late 90's, a large unincorporated area near me attempted to purchase security service from an armed security agency I worked with, because approximately 14,000 people in an urban setting were covered by a single deputy sheriff. One.

We knew that not everyone could afford the protection, so we designated a "base" figure that we needed in order to provide private police services to the entire area, and set about securing individual guarantees from homeowners and businesses. We had some trouble...not from the state or other expected sources, but from INSURANCE companies...so the idea eventually fell through. It would have worked; the security agreements had already been signed, a majority of both individuals and businesses had agreed to "blanket" protection.

Point is, both state and private agencies can co-exist in providing police protection to the general public. Not only that, it's always been my personal opinion that a PPS could provide better overall protection because there are fewer restrictions -at least in my state - on private police agencies/security agencies - than there are on regular police forces. With good business model you're gold.

Please continue...

The problem, as I see it, is with you actually paying the peacekeeper's salary.

I mean: actually paying it.

When the government takes your money in taxes, it's actually no longer yours. You don't actually own a ~350,000,000th of the country.

Conflict of interest anyone??

If you actually had monetary control over the authorities?

Noooooo..

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The problem, as I see it, is with you actually paying the peacekeeper's salary.

I mean: actually paying it.

When the government takes your money in taxes, it's actually no longer yours. You don't actually own a ~350,000,000th of the country.

Conflict of interest anyone??

If you actually had monetary control over the authorities?

Noooooo..

Understandable and valid point, but in our case it was all about how the agreement was written. Services were basically pre-paid and no single person or entity had control over the coverage.

Now if a single entity owned it's own PPS and wanted to go warlord style...yah, problems.