Libretarians privatizing Police

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Libretarians privatizing Police

No but they were perhaps bigger than any single state police agency at the time. It's hard to define because the definition of 'police' has so drastically changed. I don't think a private agency would be a good idea but it does have its good points. Still, even if it were private it would not be much different from the government police force in that you would have no choice in matter of subscribing to it because the state or local community would be the actual subscriber. You remain just the taxpayer.

You would eliminate Federal intrusion into local police, which forces them to spend time doing things like arresting nonviolent drug offenders instead of real criminals doing harm to people. You would have a MUCH greater local control over your police than you do now; probably even total control. You would have a MUCH greater influence than you do now.

 

[shanek]

!} Lowest bidders, lowest pay. Think mall security, in your living room, hired by some NGO, such as a 'Citizen's Crime Commission'.
Feel better already?

Real-world private police prove this (and the above FUD posted by people who obviously don't want to even consider the issue) to be wrong.

2} Not bound by the Constitution, any more than bounty hunters, or other private citizens.

Not at all. They would absolutely be bound by the Constituition.

Is the only thing you people have to rebut this idea FUD?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I can see why Badnarik needs to explain (on his website) how his name is pronounced....

DOH!!!!

You know, if he was the least bit relevant, I would probably take the time to learn how to spell his name.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libretarians privatizing Police

You would eliminate Federal intrusion into local police, which forces them to spend time doing things like arresting nonviolent drug offenders instead of real criminals doing harm to people.

They, the local police, are 'forced' by the law, not the feds. This would not change under a government subscriber scenario and the government subscriber scenario is the only one that is even remotely likely, for the obvious (to everyone but you possibly) reasons.

You would have a MUCH greater local control over your police than you do now; probably even total control. You would have a MUCH greater influence than you do now.

I don't see that as being the case. You might well have less control in that the government would have a layer of protection from liability which would, in turn, result in greater and more frequent abuses.

 

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

How would the LP prioritize crimes, if they had to do it for-profit? How does one put a price tag on a specific crime?

Would burglary be considered more important than rape?

What does a burglary cost society - in dollars and cents, please?
What does a rape cost society - in dollars and cents, please?

 

[crimresearch]

For a model already in place on both corporate cost benefit analysis vs helping people in distress, and how much control the 'people' would have over privatized law enforcement (and its cost) , I refer you to the HMO model.

 

[hgc]

shanek,

How would the LP prioritize crimes, if they had to do it for-profit? How does one put a price tag on a specific crime?

Would burglary be considered more important than rape?

What does a burglary cost society - in dollars and cents, please?
What does a rape cost society - in dollars and cents, please?

What is this "cost society" thing of which you speak?

Society doesn't bear costs in Libertaria, private entities bear costs. That's because they're free.

edited to add missing word

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libretarians privatizing Police

They, the local police, are 'forced' by the law, not the feds.

There is a LOT of Federal intrusion into state and local law enforcement. The LP wants to eliminate that.

I don't see that as being the case. You might well have less control in that the government would have a layer of protection from liability which would, in turn, result in greater and more frequent abuses.

Then why isn't that happening in the REAL world?

You DO have more control because you obviously have more control over your local government than state or national. Any reasonable person can see this.

 

[shanek]

How would the LP prioritize crimes, if they had to do it for-profit? How does one put a price tag on a specific crime?

Who said it does? And why is none of your FUD happening in areas that already have a privatized police force?

 

[shanek]

For a model already in place on both corporate cost benefit analysis vs helping people in distress, and how much control the 'people' would have over privatized law enforcement (and its cost) , I refer you to the HMO model.

Uh, HMOs are a government creation. They were formed by the HMO Act of 1973, as a way of giving people more control over their health care. Do you people not know ANYTHING about the things you criticize?

 

[crimresearch]

For a look at the real world problems inherent in privatizing policing, folks might want to take a good look at some of the 'success stories' where it has already been tried.

Housing authority police would be a good place to start (some of them became virtually indistinguishable from the gangs, except of course for their uniforms and cars), as well as some of the municipalities that have tried it... I think it was Chicago where the city cops were going undercover and getting beaten on videotape by the private cops, so that when they arrested them for extortion and drug dealing, they wold have more solid evidence against their 'fellow officers'.

And let us not forget the bad old days when Disney had their officers shaking down employee's houses while they were at work, and reporting back on what was being read, consumed, etc. at each address.

As previously mentioned in the Pinkerton references, 'union busting' is another example that no doubt seemed like a good idea to somebody at the time.

And of course, the privatization of corrections is equally rife with examples.

Or you could just take Badnarik's word for it...after all, he's from the LP, and they're here to help.

No need for skepticism, just sit back and relax

 

[CFLarsen]

Who said it does?

O......K. I see we need to get back to square one.

Shanek, could you please explain what a "for-profit police force" means, in terms of dealing with specific crimes such as burglary and rape?

At some point, you have to deal with these real-life issues. At some point, you have to explain what Libertarian policies mean in real life.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libretarians privatizing Police

There is a LOT of Federal intrusion into state and local law enforcement. The LP wants to eliminate that.

The federal intrusion would not end under the the government subscriber scenairo. If you think it would, explain why you think it would. If you think anything other than the government subscriber scenairo is possible, explain how. I frankly don't see it.

Then why isn't that happening in the REAL world?

It does. Government, especially local governments, are very afraid of lawsuits for violations of civil rights. Sometimes, in my opinion, far too afraid. The fear doesn't eliminate the problem. Nothing will eliminate it. Rather it reduces it.

You DO have more control because you obviously have more control over your local government than state or national. Any reasonable person can see this.

See point one. The only workable scenario is that government subscription. The private influence becomes less, not more.

 

[shanek]

Housing authority police would be a good place to start

Why? They're in low income areas, which statistically have higher crime rates. How is that a fair comparison?

 

[shanek]

Shanek, could you please explain what a "for-profit police force" means, in terms of dealing with specific crimes such as burglary and rape?

The same thing that a government police force means with regards to those crimes.

Whereas right now, our government police forces are concerned with the PROFIT of things such as asset forfeiture in the name of the War on Drugs, to raise money for their department while other crimes go ignored.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libretarians privatizing Police

The federal intrusion would not end under the the government subscriber scenairo. If you think it would, explain why you think it would.

Because the Federal government would not be able to intrude into a private police force. The private police force, being hired by the local municipality, would be their to enforce its laws, and the laws of the state that created it.

 

[daenku32]

Why don't they call it what "privatization of Police" really is. The abolishment of Police.

One question though. Who would monitor public property like city roads?

 

[shanek]

Why don't they call it what "privatization of Police" really is. The abolishment of Police.

Because it ISN'T the abolishment of police.

One question though. Who would monitor public property like city roads?

The police. Duh!

 

[crimresearch]

One question though. Who would monitor public property like city roads?


Whichever private company had the contract...just as city trash removal and road maintenance can be replaced by private firms.

Neither the fact that they have a contract with the city, nor that they operate on public property (or even that there was a legislative act authorizing their existence), would make them 'the government', so they could bypass all sorts of Constitutional safeguards, just as bounty hunters (and some private police) do today.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libretarians privatizing Police

Because the Federal government would not be able to intrude into a private police force. The private police force, being hired by the local municipality, would be their to enforce its laws, and the laws of the state that created it.

Why not? The federal government intrudes regularly in private corporations. What makes you think they wouldn't interfere with a corporation that happened to supply police services? Do you think they'd be too afraid? Stop being obtuse.