Libretarians privatizing Police

[shanek]

How, exactly?

Because they're paid from the court costs resulting from the enforcement of the crimes. They also, like local fire departments, can be funded quite a bit with citizen donations and fundraisers.

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?

Invalid question, for reasons given above.

However, here IS a valid question: why are you apparently okay with the profiteering of government police who use asset forfeiture to supplement their budgets, taking resources away from solving serious crimes like rape and burglary?

 

[CFLarsen]

Because they're paid from the court costs resulting from the enforcement of the crimes.

Court costs determine which crimes are solved first? That would mean that the private police would not touch those cases that would generate too little revenue at the courts. We would see no police work at all for minor crimes.

They also, like local fire departments, can be funded quite a bit with citizen donations and fundraisers.

What if not enough pays? What if they can't pay, shanek? Should low-income/high-crime areas depend on the charity of rich people (who have no interest in them) for protection against crime?

We would end up with rich areas with no crime, and poor areas with all the crime.

Invalid question, for reasons given above.

No, it is a very valid question.

However, here IS a valid question: why are you apparently okay with the profiteering of government police who use asset forfeiture to supplement their budgets, taking resources away from solving serious crimes like rape and burglary?

Where have I said that?

 

[Tony]

We would end up with rich areas with no crime, and poor areas with all the crime.

We have that now.

So far, most objections people have to private police are to things that occur or can occur with the current public police system.

 

[shanek]

Court costs determine which crimes are solved first?

I said nothing of the kind and you know it. I said how the police were paid. It has NOTHING to do with what is solved when.

What if not enough pays? What if they can't pay, shanek? Should low-income/high-crime areas depend on the charity of rich people (who have no interest in them) for protection against crime?

More FUD. Check out the REAL WORLD EXAMPLES of this working. And check out how the best successes are in LOW INCOME areas.

No, it is a very valid question.

No, it's not, as THEY AREN'T PAID ON THAT BASIS!!!

Where have I said that?

You didn't, but you are clearly taking an issue with these imaginary private police who are ignoring some crimes in favor of solving "more profitable" ones. I'm pointing out that the police are already doing this, I have pointed that out to you, and you have not said ONE SINGLE WORD AGAINST IT. In fact, you've IGNORED IT ENTIRELY.

So, why to government police get a free ride on this issue?

 

[karl]

Court costs determine which crimes are solved first? That would mean that the private police would not touch those cases that would generate too little revenue at the courts. We would see no police work at all for minor crimes.

I'd be worred about what happens if they don't catch the criminal. Do they get nothing at all, or can they also include unsolved crimes when they send their bill to the court? Either way there'd be problems with the incentive to hunt elusive criminals. It's more profitable to let them go.

And what about the people who are found not guilty by the court? Would the police get paid regardless? Either way there'd be incentive problems here too.

 

[CFLarsen]

I said nothing of the kind and you know it. I said how the police were paid. It has NOTHING to do with what is solved when.

Then, what determines what is solved first? Would court costs not determine which cases the private police would solve first? If no, why not? If the private police is "for-profit", why wouldn't they seek to maximize profits?

More FUD. Check out the REAL WORLD EXAMPLES of this working. And check out how the best successes are in LOW INCOME areas.

Why is a tough, relevant question for you always deemed to be "FUD"?

You didn't,

Thank you.

but you are clearly taking an issue with these imaginary private police who are ignoring some crimes in favor of solving "more profitable" ones. I'm pointing out that the police are already doing this, I have pointed that out to you, and you have not said ONE SINGLE WORD AGAINST IT. In fact, you've IGNORED IT ENTIRELY.

So, that compels you to force an opinion on me that I haven't spoken about?

 

[Tmy]

How is the private force going to provide equal protection, at less cost, when they now need to generate a profit margin, UNLIKE the public force.??? Through private donantions and fundraising??? HA!! Since when is the public eager to donate to private for profit companies that they are already paying for. (Gee I sure love the phone company. Ill send them a little extra with this months bill).

THeres always this assumption that because somthing is govt run, IT THEREFORE must be inefficient, poorly managed, and full of employees who do not want to work. BULLFLOP I SAY!!!.

 

[Larspeart]

[CLICK]

911 Operator: 911, do you have an emergency?

Caller: Yes...someone has broken into my house and my children...

911: Okay, ma'am. We'll just need to get your credit card information...

Caller: But, I think they have guns...

911: That's fine, have you called us before? If so we may have you on record--I could simply bill the info we have.

Caller: They are right outside my door!

911: Oh, well, maybe now is a good time to ask if you would be interested in our 911 Connection Insurance Plan for Gold Level Members. You get fast-track response and complementary first aid if needed...

Caller: [BANG, BANG] gurgle, gurgle.

911: Well it sounds like I lost the sales contest for this month [CLICK]

OMFG that was funny! I am as libertarian as they get, and I STILL found that a riot!

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Why is a tough, relevant question for you always deemed to be "FUD"?

Why is a tough, relevant question for you always deemed to be not worth answering?

 

[CFLarsen]

Why is a tough, relevant question for you always deemed to be not worth answering?

It is always interesting to observe just how dishonest people can be, when they realize that not everyone will dance to their pipe.

Just because I didn't answer your questions the way you wanted does not mean I have deemed them "not worth answering".

Funny how things can be twisted, eh?

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It is always interesting to observe just how dishonest people can be, when they realize that not everyone will dance to their pipe.

Sounds like a good way to describe someone who criticizes someone else for not answering questions, after proving to be hopeless inept at doing so themselves.

Just because I didn't answer your questions the way you wanted does not mean I have deemed them "not worth answering".

But what is relevant is that you did not answer them at all. And that certainly would suggest that you deemed them "not worth answering".

And by the way, since you brought up the issue of dishonesty, isn't it dishonest to claim you have answered questions that you have not answered?

(That was a question. Try not to hurt yourself.)

 

[CFLarsen]

Whatever.

This thread is about Libertarians privatizing the police. Take your beef to the relevant thread.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Whatever.

This thread is about Libertarians privatizing the police. Take your beef to the relevant thread.

If "Libertarians privatizing the police" is what this thread is about, then you should not have tried to make an issue of how someone else responds to "tough, relevant" questions, especially since you have no problem dodging "tough, relevant" questions yourself. Blatant hypocrisy is worth pointing out wherever it occurs.

 

[CFLarsen]

Whatever.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Whatever.

Does this clever comeback mean you're prepared to go back to the other thread and answer those questions you've been dodging?

 

[shanek]

Why is a tough, relevant question for you always deemed to be "FUD"?

They are neither tough nor relevant, as they are contradicted directly by a real-world experience.

So, that compels you to force an opinion on me that I haven't spoken about?

It compels me to ask why you are complaining about what private police forces MIGHT (but DON'T) do, when you ignore the fact that government police forces routinely do that very thing.

 

[CFLarsen]

It compels me to ask why you are complaining about what private police forces MIGHT (but DON'T) do, when you ignore the fact that government police forces routinely do that very thing.

But we are not discussing what government police forces do. We are discussing the claimed benefits of a private police force, driven by profit.

You have a tendency to focus on personal issues, and ignore the real issues:

• What determines what crime is solved first?
• Would court costs not determine which cases the private police would solve first?
• If no, why not?
• If the private police is "for-profit", why wouldn't they seek to maximize profits?

 

[shanek]

But we are not discussing what government police forces do. We are discussing the claimed benefits of a private police force, driven by profit.

We are discussing what a private police force would do in comparison to what government police forces do.

You have a tendency to focus on personal issues, and ignore the real issues:

I am not interested in your fallacy that makes you insist that YOU get to discard issues that you don't like and consider the rest, even the ones that have been rebutted, as "real."

 

[Tmy]

But we are not discussing what government police forces do. We are discussing the claimed benefits of a private police force, driven by profit.

You have a tendency to focus on personal issues, and ignore the real issues:

• What determines what crime is solved first?
• Would court costs not determine which cases the private police would solve first?
• If no, why not?
• If the private police is "for-profit", why wouldn't they seek to maximize profits?

Why would "court costs" go to the police??? They are "COURT costs" not "police costs." They would fall under the control of the judiciary which Im guess would keep the money for themselves. How much can you really bring in on court costs.?? Youd have some constitutional issues if you tried to bilk everyone who came into court.

 

[CFLarsen]

We are discussing what a private police force would do in comparison to what government police forces do.

Very well: We know what the government police forces do. Why can't we know how a private police force would do things?

I am not interested in your fallacy that makes you insist that YOU get to discard issues that you don't like and consider the rest, even the ones that have been rebutted, as "real."

Fallacies?? I am merely asking you to explain how a private police force would do things. If we are to compare, we need to know what to compare, right?

So:

• What determines what crime is solved first?
• Would court costs not determine which cases the private police would solve first?
• If no, why not?
• If the private police is "for-profit", why wouldn't they seek to maximize profits?