What would be different if there was no police

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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