DescentBB

.....this whole concept of 'pay to play' policing is just another guidepost en route to what I've called Nouveau Serfdom. Gotta keep those little enclaves
of wealthy people safe from the rabble when things get rough. In due time, it will be a mercenary force, not some wannabe rich folks, providing the security.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/150-co ... ar-AAb8YAu

I think your article isn't about what you are talking about.
It is about a loophole where people pay to be on an official roster giving them rights to use and carry weapons in ways, and in places, they normally wouldn't be able to.

As for a community banding together to fund a security force....isn't that what we all do by paying taxes for a police force? Where do you draw the line between good idea and bad idea? What is the factor that makes it wrong?

Will Robinson wrote:I think your article isn't about what you are talking about.
It is about a loophole where people pay to be on an official roster giving them rights to use and carry weapons in ways, and in places, they normally wouldn't be able to.

I'm aware of that, but, as I pointed out, the evolution is a matter of time.

As for a community banding together to fund a security force....isn't that what we all do by paying taxes for a police force? Where do you draw the line between good idea and bad idea? What is the factor that makes it wrong?

what is wrong is not addressing the societal/economic issues which make such a necessity.

Not any different than pay for play, like being a paid mercenary, or play soldier. You notice that play soldiers tend to cause big troubles and their training is sometimes very nonstandard with little or no forethought to scruples, instead money or some personal agenda being their driving force for doing the job, not nationalism or the good of the country. This is only a another side of our modern privatization of everything that used to be done by governments for the common good. Not a good trend either. Control of these people is the first thing lost.

tunnelcat wrote:Not any different than pay for play, like being a paid mercenary, or play soldier. You notice that play soldiers tend to cause big troubles and their training is sometimes very nonstandard with little or no forethought to scruples, instead money or some personal agenda being their driving force for doing the job, not nationalism or the good of the country. This is only a another side of our modern privatization of everything that used to be done by governments for the common good. Not a good trend either. Control of these people is the first thing lost.

fair points all around, but I'd suggest on the last sentence that control of these people will strictly depend on the checks still coming and increasing in size, ultimately. They will hold the wealthy hostage in a sense. Either way, the masses will be quite effectively subjugated, at which time some of the concerns of the present around 'right to bear arms' and 'minimum wage'(to cite but two) will seem quaint.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:... As for a community banding together to fund a security force....isn't that what we all do by paying taxes for a police force? Where do you draw the line between good idea and bad idea? What is the factor that makes it wrong?

what is wrong is not addressing the societal/economic issues which make such a necessity.

Aren't we also doing that?

It seems you might want to hold the security of those who would pay for upgraded protection hostage until the war on poverty gets a victory?

The question still needs an answer. What is wrong with people banding together and beefing up security?
If you aren't trying to hold their security hostage in return for some social repairs why would you prefer they resist the urge to fortify as their budget and need dictates?

Do you mean it when you allude to the wealthy being in danger from the security force? And it seems you are saying the non wealthy become subjugated by way of the increased security. Im not seeing it...unless you are implying the non wealthy are going to be denied their 'right to pose a threat to the wealthy'.

tunnel cat wrote:... This is only a another side of our modern privatization of everything that used to be done by governments for the common good. Not a good trend either. Control of these people is the first thing lost.

I think the examples in the article are not a privatization of a previously public service. It is more like communities selling the access to the exemptions their services provide the actual police force...selling it to rich wannabes. A different problem in itself.

The government has never provided security for homes and neighborhoods unless there are elites in those places. Absent those elite inhabitants the government is an emergency response / after the fact kind of service.

I think someone needs to read up on the Russian revolution and what happened to the nobility and the landed gentry. If you think the mercenaries are going to die to protect you...guess again.

The question still needs an answer. What is wrong with people banding together and beefing up security?

as so often is the case, theory is fine, but in practice, not so good. Most rent-a-cops are dreadful, and pretty unaccountable. Why would I have a valid opinion? If you knew where I live, you'd know that we've had private security patrols for decades. They are viewed by the real police mainly as a nuisance.

Do you mean it when you allude to the wealthy being in danger from the security force? And it seems you are saying the non wealthy become subjugated by way of the increased security. Im not seeing it...unless you are implying the non wealthy are going to be denied their 'right to pose a threat to the wealthy'.

here's how it works(and very well WILL be the way it works if the trajectory of the US social structure doesn't change): the workers, most of whom formerly were the 'middle class' or 'working poor', will be, for all intents and purposes, destitute, and completely reliant on minimal wages to survive. That, in turn, generally leads to unrest, aimed at the wealthy, who surround themselves with paid security to ward off the 'masses'. At some time, the rich will become absolutely dependent upon the security professionals, who will essentially hold them hostage for higher and higher pay. That is essentially the reality in quite a few nations around the world, nearest being Mexico.

woodchip wrote:I think someone needs to read up on the Russian revolution and what happened to the nobility and the landed gentry. If you think the mercenaries are going to die to protect you...guess again.

I've read up, and hence my general fear at the trajectory the nation is on. However, as opposed to the Russian or French revolutions, the 'nobility' this time around has two advantages: First, they actually are going to have more absolute control than did older examples, due to technological advances and second, there are a larger percentage of 'nobility' among the populace, with SO much monetary control that a very loyal military subculture can be maintained to protect them. Thanks to a generation or two of separating military people in the US into a special little subclass, that transition can be done rather neatly, and yes, they will risk death to protect the source of the money, because they won't have any real choice. It still doesn't make for a pleasant reality, but since most Americans seem to be more than willing to allow the pieces to be put in place, we may as well all start planning.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I think someone needs to read up on the Russian revolution and what happened to the nobility and the landed gentry. If you think the mercenaries are going to die to protect you...guess again.

I've read up, and hence my general fear at the trajectory the nation is on. However, as opposed to the Russian or French revolutions, the 'nobility' this time around has two advantages: First, they actually are going to have more absolute control than did older examples, due to technological advances and second, there are a larger percentage of 'nobility' among the populace, with SO much monetary control that a very loyal military subculture can be maintained to protect them. Thanks to a generation or two of separating military people in the US into a special little subclass, that transition can be done rather neatly, and yes, they will risk death to protect the source of the money, because they won't have any real choice. It still doesn't make for a pleasant reality, but since most Americans seem to be more than willing to allow the pieces to be put in place, we may as well all start planning.

Winter is coming! Lol.

And you thought I was paranoid to think people who will riot because their basketball team lost (or won...) might do the same thing if they were told the reason the first black president lost his re-election was because the rich white republicans stole it with their voting machines and voter ID laws and their hatred for minorities, etc. etc..

slick is afraid his security guards will go into full on eat-the-rich mode.

"start planning" lol

I see a new reality TV show in the making. Liberal Preppers
Season 1, Episode 1; How to pretend you feel their pain and are poor and hungry too.

Oh, wait, that's Hillary's campaign strategy! Must be on another channel...

Will Robinson wrote:slick is afraid his security guards will go into full on eat-the-rich mode.

huh?

From the article, it looks like a bunch of well-to-do people paying off a small town to get permits to carry weapons where they normally wouldn't be able to in the state. That's not gangsta.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I think someone needs to read up on the Russian revolution and what happened to the nobility and the landed gentry. If you think the mercenaries are going to die to protect you...guess again.

I've read up, and hence my general fear at the trajectory the nation is on. However, as opposed to the Russian or French revolutions, the 'nobility' this time around has two advantages: First, they actually are going to have more absolute control than did older examples, due to technological advances and second, there are a larger percentage of 'nobility' among the populace, with SO much monetary control that a very loyal military subculture can be maintained to protect them. Thanks to a generation or two of separating military people in the US into a special little subclass, that transition can be done rather neatly, and yes, they will risk death to protect the source of the money, because they won't have any real choice. It still doesn't make for a pleasant reality, but since most Americans seem to be more than willing to allow the pieces to be put in place, we may as well all start planning.

Having a bunch of inept nimrods as reserve officers making up the sum total of your police force won't go very far. Technological advances work 2 ways...the Iranians hacking into our drone forcing it to land is a example. The special little subclass you think you can buy may not be as potent as you think. There will be enough vets who will view your enclave as a ripe target. I know...you can make your enclave a gun free zone!
Yeah that'll do it.