Apparently this ISN'T the free market they wanted. You wanted the fucking cops to be privatized? This is the result, pencilnecks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/
QuoteAs it turns out, a number of SWAT teams in the Bay State are operated by what are called law enforcement councils, or LECs. These LECs are funded by several police agencies in a given geographic area and overseen by an executive board, which is usually made up of police chiefs from member police departments. In 2012, for example, the Tewksbury Police Department paid about $4,600 in annual membership dues to the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council, or NEMLEC. (See page 36 of linked PDF.) That LEC has about 50 member agencies. In addition to operating a regional SWAT team, the LECs also facilitate technology and information sharing and oversee other specialized units, such as crime scene investigators and computer crime specialists.
Some of these LECs have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it's here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they're private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they're immune from open records requests. Let's be clear. These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure and kill. They operate SWAT teams, which conduct raids on private residences. And yet they say that because they've incorporated, they're immune to Massachusetts open records laws. The state's residents aren't permitted to know how often the SWAT teams are used, what they're used for, what sort of training they get or who they're primarily used against.
Apparently privatized civil service is only okay if they're government controlled, which defeats the purpose of "small government" amirite?
LOLOLOLOLOL.
This is what happens when Massachusetts tries to be Rhode Island and fails. YOU NEVER GET CAUGHT USING A 501C3 FOR PROTECTION FROM THE GUBMINT!
:lulz: :dream:
The counterarguments I just got on Facebook were superb, hang on, I'm screenshotting this.
(http://i.imgur.com/1KO9CHl.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/HDcglPx.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/fEJgwwI.png)
As you can see, somehow, their discussion went to guns and the government ruining everything, and avoided my points entirely. Not a shocker.
Oh I forgot to block out my name a couple of times. Oh well.
Hi PEEDEE, if you didn't know my name was Angela already, ya'll do now.
Suu, you need to pull this together into some BIG WORDS.
BIG WORDS, you say?
What would John Galt do?
I'm actually pretty surprised that we're a first on this one. The Commonwealth isn't exactly an environment hospitable to libertarians. We generally laugh at people in the Libertarian Party, and reluctantly elect Republican governors (generally. Romney was our last GOP governor, and in a string of GOP governors who essentially abandoned Beacon Hill in the middle of their terms for higher posts. Plus, Romney.) to balance out the Democrat heavy General Court.
That's probably while libertarians thrive there.
I mean, you'd imagine liberal elitist east coast universities wouldn't exactly be conducive to libertarianism either, you know, but I bet you couldn't throw a stone in a Harvard lecture without hitting at least three of them.
Quote from: Cain on June 28, 2014, 07:49:17 AM
That's probably while libertarians thrive there.
I mean, you'd imagine liberal elitist east coast universities wouldn't exactly be conducive to libertarianism either, you know, but I bet you couldn't throw a stone in a Harvard lecture without hitting at least three of them.
Hmm...
You've got a point.
Ever notice how New Hampshire sits up here, and just doesn't seem to give a fuck about all of this, considering it's growing Libertarian population because of the Free State Project? However, I'm pretty sure our police et al are still public tax-payer funded, because contrary to what Libertarians want to believe, you're still paying taxes in New Hampshire. Just buy a house or shop at a state liquor store. New Hampshire does not function because of its open carry laws and no sales tax. It functions because gullible Bostonians who want a summer house in the Lakes Region pay to get the roads paved. That, and general assembly members are only paid $100 per year, that certainly saves a fair chunk of change. It also helps that about a quarter of the state isn't inhabitable.
I heard Big Words
Suu, your facebook friends are almost categorically idiots. :lulz:
Also, I don't believe that the Free State Project is actually having any noticeable effect on NH's demographics.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on June 29, 2014, 01:58:35 PM
Suu, your facebook friends are almost categorically idiots. :lulz:
Also, I don't believe that the Free State Project is actually having any noticeable effect on NH's demographics.
I really don't think it is, either, because petition signers aren't actually moving here when they realize it's not actually a "free state." Open carry and no seatbelts doesn't mean you can get away with not paying some of the highest property taxes in the nation.
Quote from: The Suu on June 29, 2014, 04:57:15 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on June 29, 2014, 01:58:35 PM
Suu, your facebook friends are almost categorically idiots. :lulz:
Also, I don't believe that the Free State Project is actually having any noticeable effect on NH's demographics.
I really don't think it is, either, because petition signers aren't actually moving here when they realize it's not actually a "free state." Open carry and no seatbelts doesn't mean you can get away with not paying some of the highest property taxes in the nation.
:lulz: As if Free Staters can afford property.