Minyin Bison

[Hasbinbad]

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

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.

Even if they were independent, how are the rules set up? do they enforce law or preference? what wiggle room would there be between law and preference for individual communities? It isn't so hard for me to imagine them getting a contract or a raise based on the idea that certain things will slide.. Sounds like conflict of interest and a recipe for corruption to me.

[Humerox]

This may differ from area to area, so I can only speak for what our particular enforcement action encompassed under local law.

We would have had the ability to enforce existing law in relation to crime, to the extent of detention and arrest until regular authorities could take action. For example, if we arrested someone for whatever...we could hold the individual until the regular police could place him under proper arrest. The beauty of it was that because we weren't regular police, Miranda didn't apply, although habeas corpus did, but was a gray area because of the differences in civil and criminal law, and the definition of power given to us by the state.

Each state basically has a definition of power the PPS, security agencies, et al. have to operate under. So what works in one area may not be the same as another.

We would have had the power to regulate anything a regular police officer did...but were also more subject to lawsuits, which is where our insurance problems came in. They didn't want to issue liability because the legitimate power issue was so gray...so that blew it for us.

Any level of police effort is subject to regulation by another authority...city police are subject to state police, both subject to the US Marshal's Office...etc.

As far as corruption goes...if I had a nickel for every corrupt police force there is in this country...

[mimixownzall]

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

I am sure I am off topic of the thread, but I am for equality to all humans. I don't think the rothschilds should have 300trillion dollars while millions of people suffer in poverty and sickness. Capitalist view: If you work hard you will earn the things you need and more and more extra money if you are really good at it or inherit the money. That's capitalism. I agree with it to a point. If you make over 200,000 a year you are just greedy and a terrible person if you don't help a lot of people with that money. Does capitalism give disabled people a fair shot ? a person with downsyndrom or other mental issues? No they are lucky just to survive. There has to be a point where you can't allow people to gain so much money that their fellow humans suffer, because of your great wealth and lifestyle.

America ???? america is not ours. We took it , by killing the people that were here first. Our country is founded on Stealing and Murder. You think hitler was bad , our ancestors did the same thing.

If everyone was honest we'd move back to our countries of origins and give back the native americans THEIR LAND.

Defend our freedoms! Defend our lands! People say this all the time. When it is just hypocritical. We Stole this land from peaceful tribes of nature loving people.

And this is why women should stay at home and raise children.

If you want to give your money to some dumbshit who is too lazy/stupid to maintain a job, go ahead. There are too many hard working people around to worry about the people who won't/can't provide for themselves.

Disabled people have just as much opportunity as anyone else. With today's technology (thanks to capitolism) handicap people can prosper.

Oh, and those people who have so much money and own to many businesses? Guess what.. they are the people who provide jobs.

Oh, and that mongoloid there drooling in the corner? Do you really think he/she really aware how poor/rich his parents are? No.

Oh, and Indians (native americans) being 'peaceful tribes of nature?' HAHAHAHAHAHA you are fucking retarded. They were constantly at war with eachother.

Hate to break it to you, but every country in the world was established through some means of this 'stealing and murder.' You would know that if you had been awake in school instead of blowing the football team.

[purist]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Hasbinbad]

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

With today's technology (thanks to capitolism) handicap people can prosper.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[warrioman]

Congratz guys, you won!

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Hoggen]

If you pay a "private police force" to enforce laws (wtf did they come from? The private law making company?), they ARE the government. Simple definition of government= a monopoly on force. In areas where there is no police force, or military, the mob is the government. Anarchism is not a system of government: it is a transitional period between governments. It is necessarily the shortest and most chaotic period in a society as the void left by the previous government is filled by the new.

As to Purist's post back on page 1, the Declaration of Independence is not written in modern phrasology. If you only read the Federalist and the Constitution, it should already be obvious that "welfare" and "union" are not even remotely defined as you attempted to define them.

The union is referring to the states: there can be no mistake if you read the Federalist. The purpose of the "union" is defended in the Federalist and spelled out in minute detail: to protect against foreign or domestic enemies, to aid in commerce, and to allow for uniformity of law. The primary purpose of the Constitution is to severely limit the powers of the Federal government, and this was cemented by the addition of the Bill of Rights. In this respect, Libertarians have it right: the government is doing much more than it was ever intended to do.

"Welfare," as quoted in Article 1 of the Constitution, refers to the security of the country itself, and has nothing to do with individuals, i.e. nothing to do with making sure each individual is happy/well-fed/clothed, whatever. The modern definition of "welfare" is a purely socialist concept and not connected with the original intent of the founders. The use of the word in Federalist 1 clearly is meant to apply to individuals, but you need look no further than Federalist 5 than to see that personal liberty, religion, and property were to be secured by the federal government: not restricted, abolished, and confiscated, respectively.

[Zagtor]

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

Personally, I like roads being public. I like public school. I like not having to pay my firemen to protect my home. .

Hasbinbad
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vallejo, CA

Fat pensions spell doom for many cities June 3, 2008

Originally Posted by Article

But the real nail in Vallejo's coffin was the city's labor costs. Under the current labor agreement, the average police officer walking the beat in Vallejo will be paid $122,000 this year before overtime, according to city documents. An average sergeant will make $151,000; a captain, $231,000. The average firefighter, meanwhile, will bring in $130,000 before overtime.

That's just the salaries, though. The final budget-crusher was the city's pension plan. Thanks to retroactive benefit enhancements approved by the city council in 2000, police officers and firefighters can now retire at age 50 and receive an annual pension equal to 90% of their final pay (assuming 30 years on the job), an amount that gets increased every year to help keep pace with inflation. The old plan had given the workers a pension equal to 60% of their final pay at age 50.

So a Vallejo police sergeant making $150,000 a year can now retire at age 50 and receive an annual pension of $135,000, increased each year for inflation. To put that amount in context, you would need to amass a retirement nest egg equal to about $3.5 million to produce a similar retirement income on your own.

I applaud your dedication to not paying your firemen to protect your home.