What would be different if there was no police

[Fragony]

Not anything, these hobby-bobby's are too dumb to do anything properly anyway. Private security can guard stores, communities can pay for surveillance, needs some changes but why are we giving money to disobedience tax exactly? Why would tax-collectors have a say into something they weren't trained for? Why do we need police?

Yes a gun debate, it should at least be tested to have no police and only guns, with private security patrolling the streets. What's the difference really de facto? Nothing, less fines but what else, it's all they know.

-castle law
-complete disbanding of police
-opening the security market

Why not?

[Lord of Lent]

Well, with a good citizen guard (that is actually protecting people instead of fining people for broken tail-lights) we do not really need police. The only problem is that private security will ask money for their services and some people may not be able to pay that...

But the poorer people could always start neighbourhood patrol...

[Fragony]

The poor are screwed anyway, police doesn't go to these area's. That is where they have to admit that they are of no use and should allow civilian guards, payed or not it doesn't really matter, the rich can afford better security anyway, and will.

[Husar]

So you're really in favour of having a Warlord in every part of the city with the different warlords fighting wars between one another? Some rich guy will buy himself enough mercenaries to try and control as large an area as possible, the mafia can just operate more openly and the citizens will have to dodge bullets and shoot back to prevent it. Of course you can solve this by fighting back with a militia but you can also die in said militia if the others are too strong, the police force are many, they have a monopole on power, they can draw forces from other cities if necessary etc. which is why it makes little sense to fight them openly, a local militia is a lot weaker than that.
That the police are not patrolling certain areas is a problem that isn't inherent to the concept of a police force, it's about how our police force is used, handled, trained, equipped and financed. In countries were there is no effective police force that establishes control of an area to keep the peace, it's usually the poor who are at the whim of marauding bandits, warlords and what not, now you can say that all our middle class citizens can afford a gun, but then when I murder someone two blocks away at night, who is going to find out it was me? There is noone to stop me from murdering again, noone who knows how to find me, there will just be a lynch mob that chooses the most unwanted person in the area, perhaps a stranger, and blames, then kills him.

[Fragony]

Yeah I prefer paying the maffia over having to pay police and the maffia, is that so odd. Every policeman costs you twice, got to pay his salary and the job he's doing, said job being writing fines. You are on your own anyway, police or no police.

[Lord of Lent]

There's no point in living like that. People simply have to come to an agreement if they want to live in peace. And the poor people are already forming mobs so I think privatising security isn't a bad idea.

[Fragony]

Absolutily awesome for the poor, the poorer the easier after all, actually collecting is a different agency, here at least. Police is just too useless to be of any use, too dumb and lazy. Guns please.

[naut]

Why not?
:laugh4:

[bobbin]

Why do people think private security would fill the void? With no one watching over them they could do what ever the hell they liked and so would very quickly become protection rackets, also being private organisations they would undoubtably focus on the most profitable forms of policing ie: fines, lots of them.

So you would be paying extortionate sums for protection and they would only really focus getting more money from you through fines, it would be far far worse than the current situation.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why do people think private security would fill the void? With no one watching over them they could do what ever the hell they liked and so would very quickly become protection rackets, also being private organisations they would undoubtably focus on the most profitable forms of policing ie: fines, lots of them.

So you would be paying extortionate sums for protection and they would only really focus getting more money from you through fines, it would be far far worse than the current situation.

Perhaps you ought to take a look at the police abuses thread. In the US, the police largely monitor and investigate themselves, so they can do a sham investigation of an officer killing someone for a door ringing prank and say nothing's wrong.

And police are already focused on fines; whether it be speed traps or asset seizure, which involves taking any money they find on a person without charging them with a crime. To stop that, we need to remove the incentive, which means police departments shouldn't get any of the money or items they seize or any of the fines they charge.

The answer, whether private or public security, is proper oversight and accountability. We don't have that in the US for the police, though I think it would be easier to get oversight on private companies than on the government police.

CR

[jabarto]

The answer, whether private or public security, is proper oversight and accountability.

Well spoken. It's nice to see that we can agree on some-


I think it would be easier to get oversight on private companies than on the government police.

welp

[Ironside]

Building on what already mentioned. Who will actually investigate the commited crimes properly and who will be getting those nice police powers in that case?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well spoken. It's nice to see that we can agree on some-

welp

It's quite easy to see; which does the government come down hardest on - private companies or other government agencies?

Why did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac escape the regulations put on the private financial industry? Why is Blackwater investigated for killing people but prosecuting attorneys can lie, hide exculpatory evidence, etc., and not be punished? If my statement is incorrect, why do police officers get away with things that private security officers would be thrown in jail for decades for?

CR

[Husar]

Why did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac escape the regulations put on the private financial industry? Why is Blackwater investigated for killing people but prosecuting attorneys can lie, hide exculpatory evidence, etc., and not be punished? If my statement is incorrect, why do police officers get away with things that private security officers would be thrown in jail for decades for?

Perhaps because it's America, where everybody hates and boycots the government as good as they can (except in times of war) so everything the government does is only half-arsed?
Despite the claims of some lunatic fringe, the police here is pretty okay, you get a few black sheep but overall police officers are very nice here.
A lot of the speed cameras set up here are set up by the local governments to make money, the police usually puts them up in places where a lot of accidents happen and it's mostly temporary, for a day or two, plus it's usually your own fault for going over the speed limit, can they fine you if you're below the speed limit in the US?
US cops are also much more on alert because everyone could have a weapon, they probably get trained thinking if they treat you nicely you will draw a gun and shoot them or something, you're the Wild West and it shows whenever there is a potential conflict. Then you also have a lot of emphasis on corporate identity everywhere, this could explain why they cover eachother, a completely overdone sense of being a collective.
The answer is not to abandon the police force, but to change it, change the training methods, instill in them not just the methods to overcome a gun-bearing lunatic but also a pride in serving the community, show them respect as a citizen for keeping you safe etc.
And kick everyone out who shows violent behaviour, the people overlooking the police force should primarily be interested in keeping a good image of the police force or they shouldn't have that job. the problems you mention are not inherent in any police force around the world, they are a problem with how your police force is organized, trained etc. IMO.

Private contractors have no moral responsibility towards anyone except the people paying them, how would the government control them if the government has no power to stop them if they refuse to be controlled? Or would you just send the national guard? Which, again, is not an option in all countries.

[bobbin]

Perhaps you ought to take a look at the police abuses thread. In the US, the police largely monitor and investigate themselves, so they can do a sham investigation of an officer killing someone for a door ringing prank and say nothing's wrong.

And police are already focused on fines; whether it be speed traps or asset seizure, which involves taking any money they find on a person without charging them with a crime. To stop that, we need to remove the incentive, which means police departments shouldn't get any of the money or items they seize or any of the fines they charge.

The answer, whether private or public security, is proper oversight and accountability. We don't have that in the US for the police, though I think it would be easier to get oversight on private companies than on the government police.

CR

My point wasn't that it doesn't happen with public police organizations but that it would be worse under private policing because they are driven by profit, this will undoubtably lead to to them over focusing on more profitable policing.

A similar situation can be seen in the pharmaceutical industry where companies spend disproportionate amounts of money on designing things like anti-obesity drugs because they are more profitable, rather than new antibiotics or HIV drugs that would do more good and save more lives.

Proper oversight is definitely a must but I don't think it would be any better for private companies, I mean look at the state the banks got into recently, it doesn't bear thinking about what would happen if something as vital as policing were to undergo a similar event.

In Britain we have the IPPC that does the job of "policing the police" although it's not very good at it (the recent case of Ian Tomlinson a rather shocking example), the problem is that the police don't do their job properly not that the concept of goverment policing is wrong.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It's quite easy to see; which does the government come down hardest on - private companies or other government agencies?

Why did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac escape the regulations put on the private financial industry? Why is Blackwater investigated for killing people but prosecuting attorneys can lie, hide exculpatory evidence, etc., and not be punished? If my statement is incorrect, why do police officers get away with things that private security officers would be thrown in jail for decades for?

CR
On the other hand which man with a gun is subject to proper Congressional oversight and scrutiny if Congress wants to: the soldier in the US Army, or the private contractor from Blackwater that Congress doesn't even know about unless it asks persisently? Hint it's not the Blackwater guy, he's just some random employee of some private company Congress can not exert direct influence on.

EDIT: What the USA would benefit from here is clearly a more centralised approach towards how police and attorneys are organised. This way the problem of accountability is solved more easily because it is clear who is responsible for what and it is possible to suspend or substitute a failing part in the chain more easily. But that requires cutting on the cherished state rights.

[Fragony]

Building on what already mentioned. Who will actually investigate the commited crimes properly and who will be getting those nice police powers in that case?

Civil court can investigate crimes And no police powers, at all, only surveillance.

[Ironside]

Civil court can investigate crimes And no police powers, at all, only surveillance.

So who will be legally able to stop that car with the criminal? Or arresting people outside the immidiate action to prevent a crime that leads to prison? Body search?

I take it the court i state owned and cooperates with the private companies for say practical use of warrants then? To be able to act on a warrent is a police power btw.

CR, if you privatize the police, who will take care of the fines? Or are all fine crimes going to be jail or decriminalized? Yes giving the police the abillity to gain money on some crimes is stupid, but I can't really find that getting a private company doing the same is going to improve the situation. I mean think of those poor shareholders.

[spmetla]

Well in a country farming region like mine I'd rather have police that patrol and are at least 30 minutes away then have it be completely wild west out here. We already have our guns and castle laws, but that doesn't stop there from drug addicts that go up and down the coast stealing cars and breaking in homes. Sure farmers could hire security guards but without a police force that has the legal authority to pursue people beyond property limits and piece together patterns to I don't see what would stop the criminals around here except getting in a shootout with them and winning. I don't want to have to execute a seven samurai script with my various neighbors every time there's a problem of crime waves.

Fines are annoying, but I rarely get any aside from parking tickets (damn fire hydrants), I'd rather know that my taxes go to a uniformly trained security/law enforcement force then have to hire bodyguards everytime I leave my property. Besides speeding (within the liberty limit of 5mph) and parking I obey all the laws and have had nothing but good service from the police, I appreciate their random roadblock/sobriety checks during the holidays and don't really mind the speed limits to much.

I see no advantage to a community of hundreds of small independent farmers having various private security guards instead of a police force, if you can't see the advantage to police in a city either then you seem to have lived a privileged life during which you've never needed them.

[Fragony]

So who will be legally able to stop that car with the criminal? Or arresting people outside the immidiate action to prevent a crime that leads to prison? Body search?

Private security can do that just as well, better because fining isn't of their job. Cheaper as well. Imho police has lost all creditable they are nothing but a nuissance. There is many that can go wrong, it takes a lot of personal responsibility towards the community of course, but like it is now a lot is also wrong. Worth experimenting with, a small or medium-sized town should be perfect as lab.

[rory_20_uk]

Using the UK as an example, if the Police were to be disbanded and a security firm were to get above itself, there is still MI5 and of course the Army. No, not a subtle tool but enough of a cudgel to keep the contractors in-line. In london rich areas are already paying for contractors to patrol the area. These receive a fraction of the pay that Plod does and do the same job (be seen in a hi-vis jacket). Are they detectives? No. Do they need to be? No.

Personally I think that local policing should be privatised and then the UK needs something like the FBI for the bigger crimes that the locals can't deal with.

This should also be coupled with a proper overhaul of laws, decriminalising drugs and prostitution to allow persons to focus on crimes.

Centre of town areas then face the real costs of cheap alcohol. No longer is it cross-subsidised by everyone else. Loads of drunk people = increased rates of crime disturbance. Local businesses will have to fork out to cover costs which will push up prices. Higher prices will mean less are attracted to cause problem, so an equilibrium will be reached (no one wants a riot that will destroy their business).

I imagine that crime in poor areas is more likely to be the drugs / prostitution / "antisocial behaviour" - you don't burgle someone who'se got nothing. So, by legalising the first two these will decrease in relevance. The third one is far harder to sort out. Unless it is thought that persons are coming in from affluent areas to cause havoc it's an in-area problem - but often extremely small in terms of numbers. If this lot were to be reported by those in the area and given tagged curfews this problem would reduce too. As Frag says, at the moment the police don't bother with these areas at all and so tumble in to worsening nightmares. Give the locals responsibility for themselves will help dispel apathy.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Or maybe the mob of poor drunk people will storm into the better neighborhoods, overwhelm the 4 security guards in front of your house and then take everything. the security guards on the other side of the street will just watch as they're not getting paid to guard that house.


Private security can do that just as well, better because fining isn't of their job.

Right now it's not their job, that's right, but if you give them more power they will gladly do that because they're all in it for the money.
Plus, if you're not fining people for reckless driving anymore, what do you think will happen to traffic accidents?

[rory_20_uk]

As opposed to now where there are precisely no police on the corner... Currently there are many more police on Monday morning than Friday night in many areas. Genius... If they were privately contracted they'd be more when required, not more when it was pleasant to be at work.

As you are probably aware, the area in a circle increases at a faster rate than the circumference. Areas would pool resources to keep as many on the edge as possible.

Reckless driving is a still a criminal offence. Offenders could then pay a large penalty and loose their license and car.

~:smoking:

[bobbin]

It has occured to me that private policing has been tried before, it was the norm for many cities before the advent of state funded professional forces.
This book (http://books.google.com/books?id=jXe5XQJWqmkC&pg=PA31&dq=Macdaniel+affair&lr=&sig=ACfU3U3ukCGKmFMYjE9zWs2Yp_kjzCuJug#v=onepage&q=Macdaniel%20affair&f=false) gives a good description of the how private policing operated in 18th century London, it also highlights the inherent flaws in the system and how it's failure to effectively police crime was the reason the state funded police was set up in the first place.

[rory_20_uk]

The book illustrates the lack of any centralised police records or even the ability to enforce laws over a distance. These are not issues today as they were solved over 200 years ago. In the case it was solved by nationalising the whole enterprise, but we do have more modern forms of communication now that mean that smaller entities can work together to effectively form a greater whole.

I hope that things such as oversight have improved over the last 200 years. Even if a large amount of policing were to be outsourced, there would still be several other institutions that would be used to keep them in line - indeed, the existing ones that police the police would be used.

~:smoking:

[caravel]

I think the problem with 'modern' policing, at least over here anyway, is that it's focused around going through the motions of investigating crimes (after they happen) for the purposes of meeting targets, rather than providing a real visual deterrent. Which is why the poorer areas have now become run down and crime infested. Near to where I live, gangs of thugs now control the streets at night. People are afraid to go out late, public transport is also dangerous at night - welcome to 21st century urban Britain.

For the purposes of this visual deterrent, private security could fill the same role and at a far lower cost. The problem is that private security will only be there for those that can afford it. In a nutshell, those poor areas will still as dangerous as ever, while the well to do will have gated communities and private security guards.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"Militia" police efforts can work to stop crime -- but their is a cost involved. Link (http://www.gunslinger.com/d-raid.htm)

[bobbin]

The book illustrates the lack of any centralised police records or even the ability to enforce laws over a distance. These are not issues today as they were solved over 200 years ago. In the case it was solved by nationalising the whole enterprise, but we do have more modern forms of communication now that mean that smaller entities can work together to effectively form a greater whole.

I hope that things such as oversight have improved over the last 200 years. Even if a large amount of policing were to be outsourced, there would still be several other institutions that would be used to keep them in line - indeed, the existing ones that police the police would be used.

~:smoking:

The capability to organise has indeed imporved vastly since then but that applies to everyone, criminals have benifited from this just as much as the police have.

It's also worth noting, as highlighted in the book with the case of Jonathan Wild, that the authorities were aware of the abuses taking place and took measures to try and stamp them out, but in the end they didn't work and the system became untenable.

[Slyspy]

The book illustrates the lack of any centralised police records or even the ability to enforce laws over a distance. These are not issues today as they were solved over 200 years ago. In the case it was solved by nationalising the whole enterprise, but we do have more modern forms of communication now that mean that smaller entities can work together to effectively form a greater whole.

I hope that things such as oversight have improved over the last 200 years. Even if a large amount of policing were to be outsourced, there would still be several other institutions that would be used to keep them in line - indeed, the existing ones that police the police would be used.

~:smoking:

I'm not convinced. If the reforms of the past created a more organised police force through nationalisation, and if the current forms of oversight would still be necessary (and funded by who?) then why are you suggesting privatisation? I'm not seeing it.

You think that private firms would provide a presence on every street? I don't see it happening, especially in less well off areas. In my cynical opion they'd do as little as possible for as much cash as possible. Who would have oversight where areas overlap, or in which chases or investigations cross operational borders? Further more, the chances are that in order to provide decent coverage the government would end up subsidising the system anyway.

[Megas Methuselah]

This is a scary idea. I know the police are a pain in the ass, but one of the core definitions of the state is having a monopoly on violence. Now, I know Canada isn't a perfect society (trust me, I grew up on the ******* bottom of it), but without the coppers... Shit, man, I don't even wanna think about it.

Needless to say, I'd build a huge, stone wall around my property. Oh, wait! I'm too poor to afford that sort of fortification. I also don't have any private property that I know of. The best bet I've got to survive is to move back to the First Nation reserve land, join the militia that would no doubt be raised there under these circumstances, and take my university classes online. But there's a problem here, see? We'll get a bunch of militant indians with guns. The last time that happened, the Canadian Army had to be brought in and the country was falling apart that year.

Yeah, it wouldn't be so pretty. That's why Canada enforces its monopoly on violence.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I agree, private companies managed by a table of CEO's placed by a select group of stockholders are more accountable then local police governed by politicians directly voted in by the public. We need to privatize as much as possible including our safety. Government obviously can't even protect us, why do we have it in the first place?

[Fragony]

You can always hire a different company, so it's in their interest to do a good job. It's not in the interest of the police to do a good job you are stuck with them anyway, and the bigger the problem the more money they get from the state to fix it. Do you need police to watch shopping malls, security does just fine, so why not expand that to the entire public domain?

[rory_20_uk]

I agree, private companies managed by a table of CEO's placed by a select group of stockholders are more accountable then local police governed by politicians directly voted in by the public. We need to privatize as much as possible including our safety. Government obviously can't even protect us, why do we have it in the first place?

Sigh. Nice hyperbole. Concentrate on problems, don't think of solutions...

A mutual organisation owned by local people.
Locally held shareholders (or a percentage thereof) with shares linked to the house occupants and non-transferrable.

Look at the background to the Co-Op.

Politicians are chosen by a clique and the populace are given a few who they can elect on what they "promise" to do - although are not legally held to. There is no chance to get rid of them until the next election, and only then for another in the same process.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

You can always hire a different company, so it's in their interest to do a good job. It's not in the interest of the police to do a good job you are stuck with them anyway, and the bigger the problem the more money they get from the state to fix it. Do you need police to watch shopping malls, security does just fine, so why not expand that to the entire public domain?

Saying that you can always hire a different company is an assumption that does not always hold true. I want fast internet, oh well I have a "choice" of Comcast or AT&T in my region. AT&T is charging me too much, I want to switch. Well Comcast knows they are the only other company, so they put a strangle on my wallet by charging as much if not more then AT&T. I don't want to stick with one crappy company but the only way to ditch it is to shell out tons of money to the other. If I decline to give either of these companies my money, I am without protection period and anyone can come kill me and my family.

Quite frankly, I don't trust mercenaries to genuinely care about my safety, they only want my money, cops in local areas are generally from the area and have a connection to the region.

EDIT: Also, no one reports the times when cops do their jobs right as often as when they do it wrong. When a cop does his job right, the outcome is usually boring (waiting for a deranged person to simply come outside and give up after a 5 hour standoff or waiting for a car chase to result in an empty tank of gas and one screwed escapee). You all know how it is, it's the same with guns. Guns are killing everyone! We hear about it everyday, but I'm sure a lot of those I am arguing against here would agree that there are many, many cases where the guns do their job safely and correctly with the proper use by responsible citizens.

[Husar]

Fragony, ask a small shopkeeper in town whose shop is not in a big mall what he thinks about paying a security guard 2000€ a month to guard his little shop. Even if they hired one guy for 5 shops it would be 400 a month, now how much of his tax currently goes towards funding the police? The police are also not nearly as useless as you make them out to be, you're completely exaggerating that, you sound like it was safer in the middle ages.

[Fragony]

Fragony, ask a small shopkeeper in town whose shop is not in a big mall what he thinks about paying a security guard 2000€ a month to guard his little shop. Even if they hired one guy for 5 shops it would be 400 a month, now how much of his tax currently goes towards funding the police? The police are also not nearly as useless as you make them out to be, you're completely exaggerating that, you sound like it was safer in the middle ages.

They can hire collectively, so can entire neighbourhoods. Taxes can lower if we dismantle the police so that shouldn't be a problem. Another advantage, the most dangerous criminal is a corrupt cop, who's going to protect the small shopkeeper abuse from them?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sigh. Nice hyperbole. Concentrate on problems, don't think of solutions...

A mutual organisation owned by local people.
Locally held shareholders (or a percentage thereof) with shares linked to the house occupants and non-transferrable.

Look at the background to the Co-Op.

Politicians are chosen by a clique and the populace are given a few who they can elect on what they "promise" to do - although are not legally held to. There is no chance to get rid of them until the next election, and only then for another in the same process.

~:smoking:

I have a solution. Care more about local politics and vote better people in who want more accountability. If we are willingly acknowledging that people cannot vote in the right people, then I guess democracy is just one big failure and everything should be privatized including decision making on the nation as a whole.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I agree, private companies managed by a table of CEO's placed by a select group of stockholders are more accountable then local police governed by politicians directly voted in by the public. We need to privatize as much as possible including our safety. Government obviously can't even protect us, why do we have it in the first place?

Scar Face & Black Water endorse this public service announcement.:7gangster:

[rory_20_uk]

I have a solution. Care more about local politics and vote better people in who want more accountability. If we are willingly acknowledging that people cannot vote in the right people, then I guess democracy is just one big failure and everything should be privatized including decision making on the nation as a whole.

At University, there was a null vote which meant a call for all new candidates. That allowed the voters to have real claws. We don't. Even if 1 vote is cast, we get an MP. Do you see that form of democracy making its way into UK politics?
Running a campaign even at local level requires money, so you need backing, or to be very rich. There are limits on spending, but the abuse of the system is rife. Who is going to reform it? The people abusing it? Fat chance.

More accountability? Don't make me laugh. If they say on their manifesto they'll publish everything that goes on, even if they wanted to they'd be stopped by central government. Even if central government wanted to the Civil Service would probably delay it for years. There is so much embedded self-interest in the current system that only radical ways to in essence bypass it will achieve anything. Get the Civil Service to reform and come back in a decade - and it's bigger. Their internal audit found they were massively understaffed...

Government should be there for overarching strategic matters and oversight. It plays to their strengths.

Most other matters should have as little to do with government as humanly possible - except the aforesaid oversight.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

Saying that you can always hire a different company is an assumption that does not always hold true. I want fast internet, oh well I have a "choice" of Comcast or AT&T in my region. AT&T is charging me too much, I want to switch. Well Comcast knows they are the only other company, so they put a strangle on my wallet by charging as much if not more then AT&T. I don't want to stick with one crappy company but the only way to ditch it is to shell out tons of money to the other. If I decline to give either of these companies my money, I am without protection period and anyone can come kill me and my family.

Quite frankly, I don't trust mercenaries to genuinely care about my safety, they only want my money, cops in local areas are generally from the area and have a connection to the region.

EDIT: Also, no one reports the times when cops do their jobs right as often as when they do it wrong. When a cop does his job right, the outcome is usually boring (waiting for a deranged person to simply come outside and give up after a 5 hour standoff or waiting for a car chase to result in an empty tank of gas and one screwed escapee). You all know how it is, it's the same with guns. Guns are killing everyone! We hear about it everyday, but I'm sure a lot of those I am arguing against here would agree that there are many, many cases where the guns do their job safely and correctly with the proper use by responsible citizens.

IN the UK, one village was going to be charged £50,000 to be connected by BT. They formed a company and got another povider to do it for a lot less. As Fragony said, it does require collective action.

Everyone is a Merc. We do jobs for the money (unless we're loaded enough not ot need it - I certainly do need the money). Being employed by the state doesn't alter that fact. Most teachers do their hours and go home. They do their job and mainly do what's best for them. Same as lawers, firefighters, nurses, doctors (I know one who saw a pedestrian hit by a car being treated by paramedics. Didn't even break stride).

Why do you think that private security guards would suddenly be employed from miles away? In the UK, police chase targets. So whatever the new targets are is the area that gets targeted. Set by central government with no interest on what the locals want. Certain crimes are also branded misdemeanours to reduce the levels of certain crimes in areas. Same with medicine. But somehow this is much better than what the nasty private sector would do...

Cops do often do a good job. Although it has been found that the public's perception of police decreases the more interaction they have with them. That's certainly been my experience (man banging on door late at night. Called police. Am I in an imminent emergency? Well, unless he kicks the door in and is armed then no - but shall I call back as I'm being attacked? They sent 2 officers around in the morning. I wanted something at the time for probably only a few seconds, not two the next morning to waste 1 hour of their time each as well as mine).

Guns are as safe in the right hands as drugs are.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

They can hire collectively, so can entire neighbourhoods. Taxes can lower if we dismantle the police so that shouldn't be a problem.
Great, so now he pays 200€ for security and gets a tax cut of 30€, where exactly was the advantage again?


Another advantage, the most dangerous criminal is a corrupt cop, who's going to protect the small shopkeeper abuse from them?
How many cops do abuse small shopkeepers?
Who is going to protect the shopkeepers from abuse by their own security guard mafia which has 100% control over their area?

[rory_20_uk]

Great, so now he pays 200€ for security and gets a tax cut of 30€, where exactly was the advantage again?


How many cops do abuse small shopkeepers?
Who is going to protect the shopkeepers from abuse by their own security guard mafia which has 100% control over their area?

Oh, so you've plucked the numbers out of thin air.

There is currently not one officer per 10 shops. If there's one per 60 shops the cost is the same.

Who protects the shopkeepers? That would be the national oversight. The same thing that stops the police from doing exactly that at the moment. Or are all current police instinctively honest (as a public service) and all future ones instinctively corrupt (as private)? Beginning to sound like a cracked record.

~:smoking:

[Slyspy]

They can hire collectively, so can entire neighbourhoods. Taxes can lower if we dismantle the police so that shouldn't be a problem. Another advantage, the most dangerous criminal is a corrupt cop, who's going to protect the small shopkeeper abuse from them?

Yes, we could hire collectively. But who should organise it? Maybe everyone in the parish (borough, county, postcode?) should vote to form a Policing Committee. And maybe some of that Committee should also attend a regional organisation, so as to ensure that information is shared and cooperation effective. And then members of that organisation could form a national body to coordinate the whole thing. And then after a few years the whole thing would become an institution, thus defeating the whole purpose of the exercise. Except that now the police presence would have "Group 4" instead of a Crown. Not very reassuring.

[Husar]

Oh, so you've plucked the numbers out of thin air.
Fragony plucked his whole argument out of thin air, he keeps saying police are useless without any proof at all.


There is currently not one officer per 10 shops. If there's one per 60 shops the cost is the same.
Then his argument that it would be cheaper is simply not true and you'd have to wonder what exactly the benefits of the private security would be again?
Fragony seems to say police are never there when you need them and/because there are not enough of them.


Who protects the shopkeepers? That would be the national oversight. The same thing that stops the police from doing exactly that at the moment. Or are all current police instinctively honest (as a public service) and all future ones instinctively corrupt (as private)? Beginning to sound like a cracked record.
So the national oversight would also tell them how they have to conduct their training, what they can and what they cannot do and in the end you'd have the same thing as the police except it's all a for-profit thing that is paid by the communities instead of, well, the community? Where is the advantage of that, especially if they have to satisfy shareholder interests as well?

[Jolt]

You can always hire a different company, so it's in their interest to do a good job. It's not in the interest of the police to do a good job you are stuck with them anyway, and the bigger the problem the more money they get from the state to fix it. Do you need police to watch shopping malls, security does just fine, so why not expand that to the entire public domain?

Oh my god, my eyes are even bleeding from reading this. No wonder I stopped reading this Backroom.

Ooo! I know! What what what about we create different private Governments! That way, we won't be stuck with the same government and the government will be forced to do a good job! That's bloody brilliant! If a government is doing a bad job, we just switch to a different government with a different set of Political and Administrative Rules!

Also privatize Justice! Privately owned tribunals! Offer different Law Packages and Systems! Different rights and duties based on wealth! After all, this is what already happens in the today's world - the justice is much better for the rich. Why keep it this way? If a Tribunal doesn't show inclination to acquit you on your 7-people killing spree, just change to another tribunal who is more lenient! After all, a State Justice has little incentive to actually give you Justice or fulfill the Law as you are stuck with them anyway.

Privatize national defence! Do you really think the ARMED FORCES is going to protect you? Do you think the Generals, with all their privileges, will intervene in case there is rioting in the streets? So long as the trouble-makers guarantee the continuation of the benefits of soldiers and officers, the army will never intervene as they hold the monopoly of high caliber weaponry! Even then, you are forced to pay for your army to buy things like tanks and howitzers and jet fighters and stealth bombers and submarines and cruisers! Can you imagine the sheer size of the cost? BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS! We need privatized armed forces to make sure there is an incentive for the armed forces to actually protect its citizens, and to make sure the cost of financing the armies is significantly reduced.

Thank you all, and God bless our Nation.

[rory_20_uk]

I've no problem with you reading, but if you could cease posting that would be appreciated.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ooo! I know! What what what about we create different private Governments! That way, we won't be stuck with the same government and the government will be forced to do a good job! That's bloody brilliant! If a government is doing a bad job, we just switch to a different government with a different set of Political and Administrative Rules!

So with all that hyperbole all you really did was describe a typical system of political parties, where if you don't like one, you elect another?

Or are you itching to get back to the days of Salazar?

[Jolt]

So with all that hyperbole all you really did was describe a typical system of political parties, where if you don't like one, you elect another?

Or are you itching to get back to the days of Salazar?

Eh? Where did you get the idea that I was itching to get back to the days of Salazar by using irony?

Notice I did not mention terms, which is something to Fragony fundamentally wrong as it ties you to a single government for a set period of time, as that government does not have competition. Besides, you might not fundamentally like a Republican regime being the only choice in your country, so why not make an Absolute Monarchy and Corporate Fascism and Communist dictatorship (Each with their own Juridical systems) available for people who want it? Surely according to Fragony, that competition would be welcome as by then we are stuck just with a single regime who has no incentive to do any better.


As far-fetched as it may be, it makes as much sense as saying the police have little incentive to protect their own countrymen, neighbours, friends, the society as a whole by making it a safer place to live in and for people to be happy in it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

At University, there was a null vote which meant a call for all new candidates. That allowed the voters to have real claws. We don't. Even if 1 vote is cast, we get an MP. Do you see that form of democracy making its way into UK politics?
Running a campaign even at local level requires money, so you need backing, or to be very rich. There are limits on spending, but the abuse of the system is rife. Who is going to reform it? The people abusing it? Fat chance.

More accountability? Don't make me laugh. If they say on their manifesto they'll publish everything that goes on, even if they wanted to they'd be stopped by central government. Even if central government wanted to the Civil Service would probably delay it for years. There is so much embedded self-interest in the current system that only radical ways to in essence bypass it will achieve anything. Get the Civil Service to reform and come back in a decade - and it's bigger. Their internal audit found they were massively understaffed...

Government should be there for overarching strategic matters and oversight. It plays to their strengths.

Most other matters should have as little to do with government as humanly possible - except the aforesaid oversight.

~:smoking:

Ok, so this post is basically just one big circular logic post. Government is too corrupt. It resists my efforts to put in place people that legitimately want to improve it. So I'm not going to bother to attempt to make it better and instead attempt to dismantle it and put in place organizations that don't pretend like they care about my input in the first place. Oh look, now government is even more corrupt and broken down since I changed my philosophy to ignore and deconstruct instead of awareness and progress. I guess my philosophy is justified. More privatization for me please.



Why do you think that private security guards would suddenly be employed from miles away? In the UK, police chase targets. So whatever the new targets are is the area that gets targeted. Set by central government with no interest on what the locals want. Certain crimes are also branded misdemeanours to reduce the levels of certain crimes in areas. Same with medicine. But somehow this is much better than what the nasty private sector would do...


Why do you think that any sort of problem you have just described about government police would not also apply to private? Every company wants to present themselves as the best. If somehow certain crimes are looked over and instead criminals are arrested for less offensives crime, then the felony rate would go down in their region which makes them seem more competant.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I've no problem with you reading, but if you could cease posting that would be appreciated.

His post was more constructive and added more to the discourse then your complaining shown above.

[Megas Methuselah]

Man, nobody read my post about the indians and da gunz?

[rory_20_uk]

Yet you felt the need to mirror them... Somehow tragic.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yet you felt the need to mirror them... Somehow tragic.

Almost as tragic as your inability to counter arguments logically, without insults.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Notice I did not mention terms, which is something to Fragony fundamentally wrong as it ties you to a single government for a set period of time, as that government does not have competition.

But unlike the police force, governments are still in a sort of market environment, since the people will just pick another party if they don't like the current one.

As for the OP, I do not think private security can replace the police force. It's just a matter of efficiency.

For a national police force, as with any state-funded organisation, it will be more innefient since it will work to meet arbitrary targets as opposed to doing what actually needs done on the ground (think of traffic wardens and how they have to give out a set number of tickets every day). And the worse they do their job, the more they will need funded, and so on. You can't entirely stop these phenomenons, it is just a case of needing damage control through proper scrutiny etc.

With smaller, independent private security firms, their lack of a central structure will make them inneficient, and completely incapable of dealing with any sort of criminal activity that crosses the borders of the different security organisations. This will then result in them having to work together, which would end up getting formalised into different institutions, and eventually they would end up operating on a national basis and becoming increasingly centralised, and so defeating their whole purpose.

For practical reasons, security has to be provided at the national level. You can either have it state-run, or run by a corporation. In theory, if it's state run, accountablity would lie in the voters; for a corporation, with the shareholders. When it comes to security, I think I would prefer it to be run by the state, since the people that hold it accountable are interested purely in the effectiveness of the police/security force, and not in profit.

That's why there's a clear line IMO with what should be state-run, and what should be privatised. The prime purpose of commercial industries is to generate profit and expand, so it makes sense for them to be privately run, and hence why state capitalism fails. But things like policing, education, and I would also say health, are best state-run, since their primary purpose is the service itself, and not to generate profit.

[Husar]

You guys do know that the police works different in every country, right?
Just tonight I walked through the city and saw at least two patrolling police cars, I've also seen police stationed in the city center at night with several people several times, yet you're telling me they're superfluous, innefficient, not doing their job, maybe in your country they are but in my country I see them often enough and feel they are doing their job. Perhaps your countries are doing something wrong? Or perhaps you would complain about living in a police state and the government spying on you etc. if you saw more than one police car per night and then the government would reduce patrols which would lead you to complain that police is never there when they're needed? There can be many factors to this but the police does not necessarily have to be useless just because it's government-run, otherwise I can also claim the US army is completely ineffective and should be disbanded.

[Fragony]

Yes, we could hire collectively. But who should organise it? Maybe everyone in the parish (borough, county, postcode?) should vote to form a Policing Committee. And maybe some of that Committee should also attend a regional organisation, so as to ensure that information is shared and cooperation effective. And then members of that organisation could form a national body to coordinate the whole thing. And then after a few years the whole thing would become an institution, thus defeating the whole purpose of the exercise. Except that now the police presence would have "Group 4" instead of a Crown. Not very reassuring.

Yes it takes a lot of direct community effort and restructuring, but people can organise that. There is a lot that can go completely wrong of course, but when done right it's the scalpel not the axe.

@Jolt, you can take anything to the extreme, you would make it very easy for me. Sorry about your bleeding eyes, hope nobody quarantaines you

[Jolt]

@Jolt, you can take anything to the extreme, you would make it very easy for me. Sorry about your bleeding eyes, hope nobody quarantaines you

Well at least I'm glad you see that the options you are proposing are extreme. Private companies weren't and aren't the example of ethic and moral values, and it isn't competition which will suddenly force them to be nice or operate in an ethical way. Just take the example of Blackwater. Or the security groups that already do what you proposed, in Joannesburg (Patrol the streets rather than guard buildings). They beat anyone up they dislike or is standing in their way, regardless if they are criminals or innocents. They have zero to little accountability to any public authority because they hold much more power and influence than those they protect. There was quite a good BBC documentary on those private security groups, a few years ago.

All in all, a terrible proposal which practically never existed throughout history, and with good reason.

[Slyspy]

Yes it takes a lot of direct community effort and restructuring, but people can organise that. There is a lot that can go completely wrong of course, but when done right it's the scalpel not the axe.

@Jolt, you can take anything to the extreme, you would make it very easy for me. Sorry about your bleeding eyes, hope nobody quarantaines you

But why? I don't see how it would help. It strikes me that you would be gaining local accountability at the cost of effciency and increased chances of corruption. The chances are that whatever happened to you to start this rant off would still have happened. Unless you were head of the Policing Committee.

[Fragony]

But why? I don't see how it would help. It strikes me that you would be gaining local accountability at the cost of effciency and increased chances of corruption. The chances are that whatever happened to you to start this rant off would still have happened. Unless you were head of the Policing Committee.

Why not? More interesting a question to start with imho, why such trust into a single entity. Nobody asks why in the shopping mall, having a set of eyes and ears isn't all that hard, outsourcing makes total sense. Cheaper, less prone to corruption, and an incentive to do a good job because you can always do business with someone else. Quik easy and painless.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You guys do know that the police works different in every country, right?

I sometimes think Fragony lives in a different country than I do, but I guess that feeling may be mutual. ~;)
Regardless I rather think that in general “the police” we got is doing its job just fine. :shrug:

[Beskar]

Robocop called, he wants his alternative reality back.

Ie: The Future (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omni_Consumer_Products_%28Robocop%29)

[Slyspy]

Why not? More interesting a question to start with imho, why such trust into a single entity. Nobody asks why in the shopping mall, having a set of eyes and ears isn't all that hard, outsourcing makes total sense. Cheaper, less prone to corruption, and an incentive to do a good job because you can always do business with someone else. Quik easy and painless.

Currently shopping mall security staff here in the UK are largly powerless, so there is no point corrupting them. I fail to see how local law enforcement of the type you suggest could be anything other than corrupt. Local councils are bad enough. I also fail to see how subject policing to market forces is going to automatically be A Good Thing (tm).

[Crazed Rabbit]

Maybe someone could tell me how private police officers would have made this story worse: (http://www.kansascity.com/2010/09/25/2250584/exposing-agent-costs-kck-detective.html)

Exposing DEA agent costs KCK police detective his job

By JOE LAMBE

The Kansas City Star

Max Seifert shot men who tried to kill him and helped solve one of the area’s most horrific animal abuse cases.

But a federal judge says the case that cost the Kansas City, Kan., detective the most was his honest investigation of a road rage attack by a federal agent.

Seifert exposed the truth about a man who was beaten and charged with a crime after he wouldn’t let an unmarked car pass him on the right.

For crossing “the thin blue line,” U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson wrote, Seifert was forced into retirement.

“Seifert was shunned, subjected to gossip and defamation by his police colleagues and treated as a pariah,” Robinson wrote. “… The way Seifert was treated was shameful.”

Before Seifert started working on the beating case, she wrote, evaluations noted his “diligence and dedication.” He’d won commendations for shooting an armed man and freeing two hostages, and for shooting a man who tried to run him down with a pickup truck.

But none of that saved him from being forced out, the judge wrote.

Seifert never sued anybody.

His case might never have come to light if Robinson hadn’t mentioned his ouster from the Police Department in her recent ruling that awarded Barron Bowling, the federal agent’s beating victim, more than $830,000 for assault, battery and excessive force.

While Bowling found justice, Seifert lost part of his pension and health insurance when he was forced to leave his career early.

“That’s why he’s still working,” his wife, Mary Ann, said last week.

Seifert’s troubles began seven years ago after Drug Enforcement Administration agent Timothy McCue tried to pass Bowling on the right in a wide lane. Bowling sped up and the cars collided.

Bowling drove forward before he pulled over so he wouldn’t block traffic, the judge wrote. That’s when McCue, gun out, rushed him. Bowling was beaten unconscious by McCue and then taken to jail.

The case ended with the recent order for the U.S. government to pay Bowling for McCue’s actions, but a previous ruling outlined allegations against the Kansas City, Kan., Police Department.

The Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kan., settled its part of the case last year for $425,000 but admitted no liability on conspiracy, malicious prosecution or abuse of process.

Before that settlement, the judge issued the pretrial ruling that described how Seifert was pressured to play along with a cover-up that started soon after the crash. Officers at the crash scene failed to report or photograph Bowling’s injuries or report what witnesses said, the judge wrote.

Instead, Police Officer Robert Lane told Bowling he was going to jail because DEA agents “do pretty much whatever they want,” the judge wrote.

Bowling was accused of assaulting DEA agents by intentionally causing the crash, and Lane ordered a reporting officer to omit the evidence of the beating and witnesses’ statements, Robinson wrote.

After Seifert spoke to Bowling in jail, though, the detective told a boss that internal affairs should take the case instead. Seifert got it anyway and called Lane to ask why there were no witness reports.

“It would look bad for DEA agents,” Lane replied, according to the judge’s report, adding that police “should cover for them.”

Seifert still proceeded to record interviews with three witnesses who confirmed the beating, but the judge later noted that the tape mysteriously disappeared after Seifert turned it over to superiors.

Deputy Chief Steven Culp told Seifert he should investigate only the alleged car assault on McCue, the judge wrote, not the accusation of beating.

Seifert finished his investigation and submitted it to prosecutors. They declined to charge Bowling.

But Culp — who discussed the case over golf with a special agent in charge at the DEA — later gave the prosecutor more statements from the DEA agents and urged charges, the judge stated.

The prosecutor ended up charging Bowling with felony criminal damage to property and the misdemeanors of leaving the scene of an accident and possessing drug paraphernalia, a marijuana pipe.

Throughout the case, Culp and Maj. Dennis Ware managed it for police, the judge wrote. Police Chief Ronald Miller got updates from them but was not directly involved.

In a sworn statement for Bowling’s civil case, Seifert said his bosses managed a cover-up.

“I’ve never seen Col. Culp walk into my office and take such an interest in a case. … I’ve never been paid visits by Maj. Ware like they were.”

In the end, the judge said, the criminal case was based on McCue’s false statement that Bowling intentionally hit the DEA car, when McCue was the one who had tried to force his way into traffic.

Seifert testified for the defense at Bowling’s criminal trial, where jurors found the man not guilty of the felony, but convicted him on the misdemeanors.

But to police, the judge said, the detective was guilty.

Seifert said in the sworn statement, taken shortly before his retirement, that police started an internal affairs investigation of him and Miller made it clear he was unhappy with him.

Miller told him that he alone would determine whether Seifert got a reserve commission to do police work after he retired, Seifert said, which is something that officers typically rely on. He didn’t get it.

Seifert, 60, and his wife still live in Kansas City, Kan. His wife said he was forced to retire less than a year before he would have been fully vested. That meant the detective who helped solve the 1997 torture and killing of Scruffy the dog — whose case led to “Scruffy’s Law” — lost health insurance and 2.5 percent off his pension, she said.

Jody Boeding, chief counsel for the Unified Government, said the government “respectfully disagrees with Judge Robinson’s conclusions about the actions of the police commanders” and believes they acted appropriately.

Miller has left the force and is now the police chief in Topeka. He did not return phone calls.

As for Lane, he became an Edwardsville councilman. He left the Police Department in 2007 after he pleaded no contest to four misdemeanors associated with a drunken-driving ticket-fixing scheme. He was sentenced to 10 days in jail and probation and is no longer on the council. He could not be reached for comment.

Culp is now the executive director of the Kansas Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training. He declined to comment on details of the judicial rulings, which he said he had not read.

Ware has retired from the force and now works for the police in a civilian capacity. He did not reply to an e-mail request for comment.

Kansas City, Kan., Police Chief Rick Armstrong said the judge’s depiction of the case does not reflect past or current attitudes in the Police Department.

“This Police Department vigorously investigates allegations of misconduct,” he said.

Wyandotte County prosecutors declined to comment.

McCue is still a DEA agent, a spokesperson said. The DEA and federal attorneys representing the agency declined comment. They said they are still studying the ruling.


CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

Personally I think we should abolish all current government regarding the law and have everything decided by me personally. Armed, untrained, macho vigilantes working purely for the adrenaline rush (and a drum of various mind-altering drugs) will bring me all sorts of offenders who will have no rights that need to be read, and I will personally decree that all the lawyers will now and forever be forced to dress as clowns and perform tricks at children's parties. I will shred the current body of laws in an actual shredding machine. The law will be whatever I had to say on the matter the last time I offered my opinion, to be changed at my discretion, even if I am drunk.

I will have a finger on a button that says "flush" and every case brought before me will involve the parties in question standing on a trapdoor. They each have 5 seconds to make their case. When it stops being amusing to me, I will press the "flush" button. Where they go, after they enter the trap door, will be something that is subject to my whims. I propose a high-speed series of clear plastic transport tubes that deposit people in various locations, depending on my mood. They can end up being flushed down a pipe that leads to the bottom of the ocean, where they are ejected and turned into fish food. They can end up 50 feet above a snowy mountain slope, and there will be television cameras positioned so that every time someone falls, their bodies will drop down the rocky, snowy face of the mountain until they stop tumbling, and there will be prizes based on where their broken body finally stops moving, like a Plinko machine. I will be the recipient of all such prizes, because I am awesome, but once per year I will allow two hobos to fight it out and claim a prize, and they must claim it by killing the other one with a plastic picnic spoon, without using their hands, which leaves only the teeth or the toes or another creatively strategic location to hold it steady. Another tube will transport them to a room that is filled with sexy dancing girls, and for 3 whole seconds they will believe I am being a kind and generous man, but then another trapdoor opens and they will have to battle the Rancor, again using only a plastic picnic spoon, and this time, without the use of their hands, feet, or mouth, so they will have to be very creative in how they wield it.

I will genetically engineer the Rancor using only the finest public funds that would have otherwise been spent on wars and silly things like education.

Also, I will get backlogged, often, as sometimes I have to sleep, so there will be a chamber where all the people who are too impatient can go and get my "express service" where I render sudden summary judgment on all of them. They will be allowed to collectively plead their case by voting on which single word from the English language they wish to submit as their testimony. If I do not laugh, I will press the "flush" button, and they will be forced to spend the next 70 years in a room with a man named Frank who never speaks and always wants to comb their hair while viciously poking them in the eye with his finger. For this he will be paid a handsome salary, and be given medical benefits and a huge pension, which he will never be allowed to collect, but I will tell him it is there.

I will settle all civil disputes by forcing the parties in question to do improvisational comedy, and whichever one makes me laugh the least gets flushed, and the other person gets all their worldly possessions.

I promise that my brand of justice will be cruel, absolute, and there will be no appeals process. I will be appointed for life, and my work schedule will be "whenever I feel like it" which will be every third tuesday for 1 hour. After that, it's off to Bermuda with a gaggle of nude models.

Surely we can all agree that this system is better than what we have now?

[Fragony]

Currently shopping mall security staff here in the UK are largly powerless, so there is no point corrupting them. I fail to see how local law enforcement of the type you suggest could be anything other than corrupt. Local councils are bad enough. I also fail to see how subject policing to market forces is going to automatically be A Good Thing (tm).

More accountable and more flexiblity, I don't see how it would lead to more corruption, current system is much more prone to that.

[Husar]

Maybe someone could tell me how private police officers would have made this story worse: (http://www.kansascity.com/2010/09/25/2250584/exposing-agent-costs-kck-detective.html)


CR

Ah yes, because one case proves that police is the worst thing ever and everyone knows that the USA have the best police in the world so there couldn't possibly be any police system that works better.

I'm totally with Askthepizzaguy's idea, I mean why not?

[Rhyfelwyr]

What's with all the hyperbole in this thread?

What?! You want one centralised police force controlled by some suits with an institutionalised monopoly on the use of force? Oh know, there will be nobody to question them! Their powers will go unchecked! And their power is even legally ingrained in the political system?! The government will be able to use them whenever and however they want! They'll be a new Gestapo, we'll be living in a fascist police state. Nooooo!

I do not support the OP's proposals but can we at least keep things sensible?

[Quid]

Personally I think we should abolish all current government ...

Pure class! Thanks!

A privatised police force is a terrible idea on so many levels. All I have to say on this as most has already been said.

Quid

[Fragony]

Ah yes, because one case proves that police is the worst thing ever and everyone knows that the USA have the best police in the world so there couldn't possibly be any police system that works better.

I'm totally with Askthepizzaguy's idea, I mean why not?

Because it's taking a tiny bit of government back where it belongs, ie own responsibility. That needs people wlling to organise, put them in a situation and they will. Why such lazy thinking, if it were a college assignment it would probably spawn nothing but creativity.

[rory_20_uk]

What's with all the hyperbole in this thread?

What?! You want one centralised police force controlled by some suits with an institutionalised monopoly on the use of force? Oh know, there will be nobody to question them! Their powers will go unchecked! And their power is even legally ingrained in the political system?! The government will be able to use them whenever and however they want! They'll be a new Gestapo, we'll be living in a fascist police state. Nooooo!

I do not support the OP's proposals but can we at least keep things sensible?

Something that is "clearly" so preposterous can be shot down without this drivel [illustrated in the aforementioned quote]

Rhyfelwyr, you forgot deathsquads, concentration camps, illegal torture, deportations...

Hang on, all have been set up by current systems.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Pure class! Thanks!

A privatised police force is a terrible idea on so many levels. All I have to say on this as most has already been said.

Quid

Which is that it's a bad idea. Because, ehhhhhh we agree it's a bad idea, now let's get naked.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Unless you find people who all care about the police as much as you do, I doubt the creativity of the people you want to burden with running their own police force is going to come up with something much different from a police force -- only many times more expensive. It's costly to hire private contractors who want money up front. It costs nothing up front to use the police (literally: nothing). And the reason is that police is written off on the national balance sheet rather than your own, that police is not a for profit organisation, and that police are paid a lot less than private contractors doing equivalent work.

Private contractors and other private security staff earn much, much, much more as private contractor than as equivalent employee of a state agency.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Rhyfelwyr, you forgot deathsquads, concentration camps, illegal torture, deportations...

Hang on, all have been set up by current systems.

~:smoking:

I was parodying the lefties, just to be clear, eg Jolt's outburst..

As Tellos said, the problem with private security isn't that it would lead to gang chaos/anarchy, most people simply don't care enough for all the fuss that would come with maintaing their own private security. And even if it was done collectively within communities, the social links within them these days are far too weak compared to even 30 years ago, so it would end up getting placed in the hands of some committee, which would probably end up being dependent on the council, then for the sake of ease the links between them would be formalised, and suddenly it's in the hands of the government again.

[gaelic cowboy]

I bet you any money private cops would be badly paid due to the parent company trying to save money in order the shareholders got a return.

That would lead to high turnover of staff, low morale etc etc gimme comfortable lazy civil servant anyday when it come to security.

[Strike For The South]

What would be different if there was no police


The muslims would rape your women and steal your possesions AND then as the coup de grace install sharia law


Edit: so basically you're back where you started lol.

[Fragony]

The muslims would rape your women and steal your possesions AND then as the coup de grace install sharia law


Edit: so basically you're back where you started lol.

Since when did you become 100% normal, get in line to deliver that doomsday argument

Did you notice by the way that you make less spelling mistakes when you are drunk

[Tellos Athenaios]

Fragony I think you're onto something here. Maybe its is because when you are drunk you can't muster the energy to get in a mad typing frenzy and the SNR of your typing may depend on the number keystrokes per second?

[Kagemusha]

The main problem with private police forces is the same problem that makes them redundant as option. If we would have private companies offering law enforcement, how would we make it sure that each company would set standards and the citizens would get equal service from different companies? We would need to standardize their training and set up an institution to monitor these companies. Also we would need some sort of organisation to coordinate the efforts which would need cooperation of several local operators. So in the end we would have to create a similar institution we already have, in other words we would be disbanding and reinventing the police. So in the end if the problems currently are not in the organisation of police forces, why should we have to disband such organisation? If the only reason is that someone wants that organisation to be in private ownership, why dont we just sell the current police organisation to the highest bidder, thus creating a private monopoly of violence instead of public one? Any takers?:beatnik:

[rory_20_uk]

Not so.

Currently all police forces are separate and have central oversight and standards. Keep these two as they are and the rest are private.

Many Public institutions go to private companies for training. As the private companies are accredited to train at a certain standard they then can undertake this.

You'd be amazed at how private companies manage to work together all the time. It's surreal. Cars are made. Foodstuffs are shipped to shops, buildings are created. All without the state needing to be in charge of ever stage to make it work. Some have even noticed that this is done more efficiently than if all were owned by the state - although in theory that should be impossible.

The whole point is that different areas do things slightly differently as opposed to the "one size doesn't fit anyone" approach. The forces would be far more likely to adapt and learn off each other.

"If a Supermarket makes a change to improve efficiency / services / profits within a week all the other supermarkets are doing it. If a Hospital makes a similar change, within a week all others are saying it's impossible / dangerous / counter-productive".

~:smoking:

[Slyspy]

I believe there is still some hazy notion that shops and hospitals are somehow different.

[Strike For The South]

Since when did you become 100% normal, get in line to deliver that doomsday argument

Did you notice by the way that you make less spelling mistakes when you are drunk

I posted that at 1:45 in the afternoon.....

[rory_20_uk]

Sadly there is far too much of a difference. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11453520)

There is almost no desire to learn from the best, to innovate or to engage staff in hospitals. Except when it is killing off competition in ways that in any other industry would get one referred for market distortion / cartel formation.

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Police officers are essentially a hybrid public/private security in the US. They work for companies, campuses, towns, counties, cities, states and the Federal government.

The common bond is that they tend to uphold both laws held in common and local ordinances. I'm not sure what the benefit would be of having a police force that was not beholden to the concept of equal justice for the people, but rather extra justice for the patrons.

[Fragony]

I posted that at 1:45 in the afternoon.....

Never been drunk at that time?

epic=-1

again

[Kagemusha]

Not so.

Currently all police forces are separate and have central oversight and standards. Keep these two as they are and the rest are private.

Many Public institutions go to private companies for training. As the private companies are accredited to train at a certain standard they then can undertake this.

You'd be amazed at how private companies manage to work together all the time. It's surreal. Cars are made. Foodstuffs are shipped to shops, buildings are created. All without the state needing to be in charge of ever stage to make it work. Some have even noticed that this is done more efficiently than if all were owned by the state - although in theory that should be impossible.

The whole point is that different areas do things slightly differently as opposed to the "one size doesn't fit anyone" approach. The forces would be far more likely to adapt and learn off each other.

"If a Supermarket makes a change to improve efficiency / services / profits within a week all the other supermarkets are doing it. If a Hospital makes a similar change, within a week all others are saying it's impossible / dangerous / counter-productive".

~:smoking:

I work in a private company.I dont need a lecture how private companies work. Please tell me how adaption only works in private sector? Maybe private sector should also train and provide militaries also, as they are superior to any public organisation by default? Public institutions do not have to be inefficient by nature. Also profit making and maintaining law is hardly a good combination.

[rory_20_uk]

I work in consultancy so I've got a pretty good idea of how many Private and Public services work.

The data - and there is a vast amount of is shows how much better the Private sector is on adapting on average. I'm not a idealist, I'm a pragmatist. I want a system that works, not one that is based purely on ideals.

Public sector doesn't make profit, and hence quickly becomes bloated and inefficient as why not?

Do you really have to reiterate the tired old hysteria that charges towards privatising everything as proving that it's a bad idea somehow mirrors what was actually being discussed.

~:smoking:

[Kagemusha]

I work in consultancy so I've got a pretty good idea of how many Private and Public services work.

The data - and there is a vast amount of is shows how much better the Private sector is on adapting on average. I'm not a idealist, I'm a pragmatist. I want a system that works, not one that is based purely on ideals.

Public sector doesn't make profit, and hence quickly becomes bloated and inefficient as why not?

Do you really have to reiterate the tired old hysteria that charges towards privatising everything as proving that it's a bad idea somehow mirrors what was actually being discussed.

~:smoking:

Are you now talking about UK or world wide? Profit in itself is not only way to create efficient organisations. Could it be that for example the problems in your police services might spring from too low public spending? Could it be that too big contrast between the salaries of public and private sector springing from low spending might result into most talented people going into private sector in UK?For example Finland where i live has for years and years been at the top of the lists of most efficient economies in the world, while we have a large public sector. If supported and monitored enough and thus made competetive a public organisation can be just as effective as a private one.

There are reasons why the essential organisations of society are by large handled by public organisations. A company trying to make profit geopardises equality, which governments should try to offer to citizens. Second private companies can go bancrupt and are unstable depending on the market, which does not apply to governments so easily. We cant loose our police forces because of a market crash. Last at certain fields making of profit just does not suite the role of a organisation. This applies directly to defence and police forces.

You can accuse me of hysteria against privatizing, but i might as well call you out of uncalled preaching about superiority of private companies compared to public organisations.