Libretarians privatizing Police

[Tony]

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.

Are you saying the public police never overstep the constitutional safeguards?

 

[shanek]

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,

My private trash removal company has no contract with my county (I don't live in a city) to pick up my trash. They have a contract with ME. And I have a choice of about a dozen companies I can hire to do that. In fact, a few years ago I fired the one I was with because the service sucked and hired the one that picks it up now.

However, a private police force would have to be chartered by the Executive Branch of that state if they wanted the power to make arrests, as opposed to just hold someone until someone with the power to arrest can be called out (which any citizen can do anyway).

IOW, just more FUD. Move along, nothing to see here...

 

[daenku32]

Because it ISN'T the abolishment of police.

Sure it is. You can't give individuals the powers of current police without government control over them.

I'll be dam**d if ANY other private individual can enjoy more priviliges or rights than me in any public place.

 

[Rob Lister]

Sure it is. You can't give individuals the powers of current police without government control over them.

And THAT is the crux of the argument in a nutshell. Well said.

 

[Tony]

I'll be dam**d if ANY other private individual can enjoy more priviliges or rights than me in any public place.

But you'll accept that a public individual can enjoy more priviliges or rights than you?

 

[shanek]

Sure it is.

No, it isn't. It's the replacement of government police with private police.

I'll be dam**d if ANY other private individual can enjoy more priviliges or rights than me in any public place.

Since no one is saying that they should, this is just another strawman.

 

[Rob Lister]

No, it isn't. It's the replacement of government police with private police.

If the govenment does not control the private force then the private force becomes the de facto government. They do the governing regardless of the elected government.

 

[hgc]

If the govenment does not control the private force then the private force becomes the de facto government. They do the governing regardless of the elected government.

That's always happening in Libertaria! No matter what government function you eliminate, a private organization takes on the coercive power. Goddamn civilization! Mocking my freedom!

 

[Rob Lister]

That's always happening in Libertaria! No matter what government function you eliminate, a private organization takes on the coercive power. Goddamn civilization! Mocking my freedom!

That was not always the case. There was actually a time when the libertarian viewpoint was not completly idiotically idealistic; it didn't completely ignore reality. There was a time, and by golly I remember it, when being libertarian was not about being an anarcho-capitalist/socialist (pick your flavor).

Jefferson was a libertarian as were many (but certainly not all) of our founding fathers.

If they'd return to those values, as well as those realities, they might once again find me in their company.

 

[daenku32]

But you'll accept that a public individual can enjoy more priviliges or rights than you?

Yes. Public figure is a servant of individuals and can be controlled by them. A private individual or group cannot be controlled as easily because only one that can attempt to control them is the government.

It's easier for me to get previliges of a public official revoked than the priviliges of my neighbor. Rightfully so.

 

[shanek]

If the govenment does not control the private force then the private force becomes the de facto government. They do the governing regardless of the elected government.

No, they don't. They're just (de facto) part of the Executive branch. They enforce the laws made by the Legislative branch, they are subject to the jurisdiction of others in the Executive branch, such as the D.A. and prosecutors all the way up to the Governor, and the cases have to be tried in the Judicial branch which is still going to throw out all evidence unconstitutionally obtained and enforce the rights of the accused. They no more "do the governing regardless of the elected government" than government police do.

 

[shanek]

That was not always the case. There was actually a time when the libertarian viewpoint was not completly idiotically idealistic; it didn't completely ignore reality. There was a time, and by golly I remember it, when being libertarian was not about being an anarcho-capitalist/socialist (pick your flavor).

Jefferson was a libertarian as were many (but certainly not all) of our founding fathers.

If they'd return to those values, as well as those realities, they might once again find me in their company.

We never left those values. We still have them. We are NOT "anarcho-capitalists."

I suspect this is a case of someone wanting to eat his cake and have it, too.

 

[Rob Lister]

No, they don't. They're just (de facto) part of the Executive branch. They enforce the laws made by the Legislative branch, they are subject to the jurisdiction of others in the Executive branch, such as the D.A. and prosecutors all the way up to the Governor, and the cases have to be tried in the Judicial branch which is still going to throw out all evidence unconstitutionally obtained and enforce the rights of the accused. They no more "do the governing regardless of the elected government" than government police do.

How so? My statement was predicated on the private police not being controlled by the government. You assert I am mistaken because the government would control them. This is why I call you obtuse.

 

[Tony]

Yes. Public figure is a servant of individuals and can be controlled by them.

This is nonsense. A pulic figure has more rights and privlidges, but you have control over them?

A private individual or group cannot be controlled as easily because only one that can attempt to control them is the government.

But you just said individuals have control over government. If they have control over government, by extention, they have control over other private individuals.

 

[shanek]

How so? My statement was predicated on the private police not being controlled by the government. You assert I am mistaken because the government would control them. This is why I call you obtuse.

I explained exactly how it would and does work. How is that being obtuse?

You say that private police could violate your rights. Well, government police can and do violate your rights; what happens to them? If they don't get smacked down by their superiors in the Executive branch, the Judicial branch will take care of it. Why do you think it would be any different with private police?

 

[CFLarsen]

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

Really? So, where does the "for-profit" come in?

 

[Grammatron]

This seems to be exactly like the the current police except with less power to fight crime; why bother wasting time with it if we already have it?

 

[shanek]

Really? So, where does the "for-profit" come in?

Um, because they end up making more money than they spend?

 

[shanek]

This seems to be exactly like the the current police except with less power to fight crime;

Why would they have less power to fight crime? Can you substantiate this by referencing the areas that already have private police?

 

[CFLarsen]

Um, because they end up making more money than they spend?

How, exactly?

When they have to decide which crime to investigate, do they choose the burglary case or the rape case?

Which is more profitable to solve, shanek?