Govt monopoly on force is what we have in the U.S., except for the right to self-defense (and that the govt supervises and may make you prove it in court). I believe it should be that way, but that it also makes govt dangerous and is among the reasons it ought to be limited and we must be vigilant in how that force is authorized to be used.

A corporation doesn't storm into people's homes with para-military units known as SWAT teams to grab their bag of pot, and in the process often kill people and pets. Corporate actors who do use violence agasint people (other than by, say, rightfully "escorting" them from premises for trepass and the like), should be prosecuted.

By contrast, English has very few smells that are this way (I can think of only "acrid" right now but there is at least one other).

Yes, that's the one I couldn't think of. Thanks.

Bail Enforcement Agents (bounty hunters) work for corporations (Bond Agencies) or are incorporated themselves and they most certainly do that, under color of law (an obscure federal statute, 1872? 76?)

A corporation doesn't storm into people's homes with para-military units known as SWAT teams to grab their bag of pot, and in the process often kill people and pets.

Thanks for the words, I'll be looking forward to your posts. I will be involved tomorrow, so I doubt I'll say much. One wonders what the local trinity will do with themselves. ;-)

I do grow a bit bored with no one ever responding with people that they are "for" or with specific political ideas that they are "for". It is as if they are afraid --- they can attack others, but not put forth anything themselves. As an example; I wrote that I supported Ron Paul. Yes, I know --- no chance in hell of winning, but I will vote for him. I have read no one else here tell me of a better candidate --- I think they all are waiting for Glenn to make a endorsement. (if true, how sad is that?)

I have been inspired by the liberal branch of the Society of Friends mainly, at least until I read the works from Nag Hammadi Library. Now, I suppose I understand inspiration comes from many works.

In the United States legal system, the 1873 U.S. Supreme Court case (Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall (83 U.S. 366, 21 L.Ed. 287), is erroneously cited as having established that the person into whose custody an accused is remanded as part of the accused's bail has sweeping rights to recover that person (although this may have been accurate at the time the decision was reached, the portion cited was obiter dicta and has no binding precedential value). Most bounty hunters are employed by a bail bondsman: the bounty hunter is paid a portion of the bail the fugitive initially paid. If the fugitive eludes bail, the bondsman, not the bounty hunter, is responsible for the remainder of the fugitive's bail...In the United States of America, bounty hunters have varying levels of authority in their duties with regard to their targets, depending on the states they operate in. As opined in Taylor v. Taintor, and barring restrictions dictated by the state in which the bounty hunter is operating, a bounty hunter can enter the fugitive's private property without a warrant in order to execute a re-arrest. In some states, bounty hunters do not undergo any formal training, and are generally unlicensed, only requiring sanction from a bail bondsman to operate. In other states, however, they are held to varying standards of training and licensure. In California, bounty hunters must undergo a background check and complete various courses that satisfy the penal code 1299 requirements. [2] In most states they are prohibited from carrying firearms without proper permits. However, Louisiana requires bounty hunters to wear clothing identifying them as such. [3] In Kentucky, bounty hunting is generally not allowed because the state does not have a system of bail bondsmen, and releases bailed suspects on their own recognizance, thus there is no bondsman with the right to apprehend the fugitive. Generally, only fugitives who have fled bail on federal charges from another state where bounty hunting is legal are allowed to be hunted in Kentucky.[4] In Texas, every bounty hunter is required to be a peace officer, Level III (armed) security officer, or a private investigator[1].

There is always a possibility for a fugitive to make life difficult for a bounty hunter by fleeing to states which restrict some or all parts of the bounty hunter's service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounty_hunter

sNYg - I got curious enough to ask some questions, even while it occurred to me that it was like getting trapped in the elevator with an evangelist - and I have eyed the tinfoil hat in recent days, given the onslaught.

ondelette -

"So maybe, although they have other meanings in other contexts, conservative and liberal are the cognitive colors of our political spectrum, in that they can be used exclusively by people who don't want to differentiate, and everybody will argue if you try to define something they know when they see."

For myself, I have tried to confine remarks to specifically what we are dealing with here - the Administration, even just a small part of the Administration, factions associated with it, or specific self-identified groups. The absolute-sounding terms (that aren't) are too often (in my opinion) troll-bait or invitations to arm-wrestling matches.

This is what concerns those (knowledgeable) about privatizing some government functions...

Policing in London before the Bobbies

How Suspects were Apprehended

Thief-Takers

Concern about high levels of crime in London in the late seventeenth century led the government to adopt the practice of offering substantial rewards for apprehending and convicting those guilty of specific serious crimes, such as highway robbery and coining. This practice expanded in the eighteenth century, and was supplemented by individual victims of crime who offered rewards for the return of their stolen goods. Both practices were facilitated by the advent of daily newspapers in the early eighteenth century, which allowed information about such rewards to be widely distributed in advertisements. The introduction of these financial rewards fundamentally altered the character of criminal justice in the metropolis.

Thief-takers used their knowledge of the criminal underworld to profit from both types of rewards. They negotiated between thieves and the victims of theft to return stolen goods in exchange for a fee. At the same time, they occasionally used their knowledge of criminality to inform on criminals and prosecute them at the Old Bailey in order collect the substantial rewards offered by the state for their conviction. This second activity arguably facilitated the administration of criminal justice, but the more corrupt thief-takers went further: they blackmailed criminals with threats of prosecution if they failed to pay protection money, and some even became "thief-makers" by encouraging gullible men to commit crimes, who were then apprehended and prosecuted by the thief-taker in order to collect the reward. Such practices illustrate the point that not all "crimes" prosecuted at the Old Bailey actually took place; some prosecutions were malicious.

The man who best developed all aspects of the thief-taker's trade was Jonathan Wild, the self-styled "Thief-taker General of England and Ireland", who dominated London's criminal underworld in the early 1720s but was eventually tried and convicted at the Old Bailey for receiving stolen goods and hanged in 1725. Many other prosecutors and witnesses found in the Proceedings were also thief-takers, though of course they were rarely identified as such, except by defendants trying to discredit the case made against them.

Despite the bad publicity surrounding Wild's activities, and those of the McDaniel gang at mid-century, the authorities continued to offer rewards and encourage the legitimate side of thief-taking, because without thief-takers their ability to apprehend criminals would have been greatly reduced.

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/crime/policing.html