Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Now that Britain is set to "privatise" their police force I wonder what others think of such a move? I wonder how Britain can ensure the standards of these private groups and how they might convince the public this is a good move?
Twenty years ago we had to political blocks in the world, one with everything run buy government and one with almost everything in private hands. A big competitive race between socialism and capitalism for good half century. Guess who won, and that should tell you something about who was more efficient and better organized.As an expert in administrative law, and from a decade-long experience of (although partial) privatisations in Italy, I can tell you the "privatisation" of the police would be an awful mistake.
If a public service/institution, any of them, does not work properly, the solution is to make it work as it should. It's not privatisation. Privatisation is just a cheap shortcut to much worse problems.
Britain please don't do that!
Twenty years ago we had to political blocks in the world, one with everything run buy government and one with almost everything in private hands. A big competitive race between socialism and capitalism for good half century. Guess who won, and that should tell you something about who was more efficient and better organized.
hope: Would you please elaborate on the "privatisation" of British police. I don't quite see what you mean, policing of a countries laws is always the responsibility of the police as an arm of government.
Ruthless? You haven't lived in real socialist country. Go to Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea (the most socialistic countries at the moment) for a while and you see how ruthless socialism is. And yes, don't forget to tell these poor and almost enslaved citizens how great socialism is.Capitalism wins because it's more ruthless, but that doesn't make it good for the ordinary citizen, IMO. I'd much rather live in a social democracy like Sweden than in a laissez faire capitalist country like the U.S.
Ruthless? You haven't lived in real socialist country. Go to Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea (the most socialistic countries at the moment) for a while and you see how ruthless socialism is. And yes, don't forget to tell these poor and almost enslaved citizens how great socialism is.
For your information Swedes romance with socialism didn't turn the way they envisioned. Swedish government run sectors of economy are sold on free market these days.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/worldbusiness/05iht-private.4807230.html?_r=0
Capitalism wins because it produces goods and services most efficiently. If it produces more than any other system the citizens have more to enjoy, share, buy, and country is stronger and more secure overall. That's why capitalism and free market wins, it produces, produces, produces.
Thanks for your basic knowledge, but actually it is not a good definition of socialism, and more about economy than political system. You can have Co-operation with profit sharing and operating in capitalist free market economy. What makes company socialistic is that they don't supposed to have a profit. They should produce at cost without any profit. Also not knowing how much to produce (no free market there) the production quota need to be set by government. Wages need to be regulated and also prices of products. In this scenario government needs to take a role of capital bank, and decide what is needed and what factories to build.First of all, some basic information for you about political systems. In a socialist system, the people own the means of production, often in a direct manner through workers' co-operatives.
Actually they are. Production is not for profit, no private owners, planned economy, set prices and production quota, government is the banker. It looks like a pig, it smells like a pig, it's a pig!!! I guess, this is not what you envisioned as socialism, sorry to disappoint you. Democracy is not a prerequisite for socialism, neither for capitalism. Look at China.Communist countries such as Cuba and North Korea are pretend socialist systems where the means of production is actually owned by the state on behalf of a narrow elite, the communist party members.
Sorta, it has more to do with profit, capital and free market than with private ownership, numbers of owners, shareholders, co-operators, directors, etc.A purely capitalist system is one where the means of production are privately owned.
I'm also for implementing some features of socialism into capitalism in some sectors and giving helping hand to unfortunate.A socialist democratic country such as Germany or Sweden combines some of the best features of capitalism and democratic socialism, in that the supply of such things as health care, education and infrastructure is controlled by the state on behalf of the people, while still allowing plenty of scope for individual initiative in other areas of the economy.
Sorta again. USA have one of most stringent safety and health regulations on this planet, and still it lags behind others in socialistic values. It is more about country being rich, richer the country the more money is spent/allowed for these services, same goes to environmental regulations. Go in time to socialistic countries like India or China years ago and check their safety regulations or pollution regulations, then you learn that it is not about socialistic values.And social democratic countries tend to have strong health and safety regulations, a progressive tax system and some mechanism for controlling housing costs, such as a system of housing co-operatives.
What are you implying emigration has to do with swing to the right? Are all emigrants the same in their convictions and beliefs?Although a centrist liberal coalition replaced the Social Democratic Party and its coalition partners a few years ago, Sweden would still be considered a social democratic country. And much of the apparent "shift to the right" can be explained by concerns about immigration.
It shows you're from BC, lol. What would you do without billions coming with immigrants from Asia? It is easy to be a socialist when money is flying in with rich. You don't need to produce much to be well off, do you?Canada is also perhaps still closer to social democracy than pure capitalism
And it brought US to economic stagnation of 70s and 80s till Reagan fixed it. Too much socialism kills economy quickly.And the American golden age in the 1950s and 1960s was a time of strong unions, a progressive tax system, a good publicly funded education system and a willingness to use public funds for building infrastructure.
I'm pretty sure you realize that no matter what there always will be less off people in any country, and they will be called poor. To really know what that means I'd advise you to check what services poor people get in US these days, plus their health or length of life, and compare their situation with poor Americans of 1913 for example. Later for fun you can compare poor in America to middle class in Cuba.It's left many Americans living in poverty.
Wow, from left field, and since Somalia represents capitalistic free market economy which I'm a fan of? I would guess you send me to Singapore lol, today's Mecca of capitalism.However, if you're committed to a system of weak government and strong individual initiative, maybe you could consider moving to a country that's really embraced that idea, such as Somalia.
On what grounds you assumed that private police force will be also a judicial or law making body? The hatred of private enterprise makes you lose concentration to say the least.How do you feel about the privatization of police forces? Do you think big corporations should decide what laws should be enforced?
On what grounds you assumed that private police force will be also a judicial or law making body? The hatred of private enterprise makes you lose concentration to say the least.
Either public or private police force is to uphold already decided set of rules, isn't it. The only conundrum is to figure out the system to make them more efficient, to get a better bang for our money.
.............
Btw - since you seem so proficient on the subject, could you please explain me who are those Marks and Angles guys that you quoted?
But for sure privatization is not the right solution, because it would bring money-related mechanisms where money cannot count at all - on the matter of your own civil rights.
Seriously, you have never heard of Karl Marx or Friedrich Engles regardless of the spelling? You will have to acquaint yourself with the various ways our European members may have of spelling.Btw - since you seem so proficient on the subject, could you please explain me who are those Marks and Angles guys that you quoted?
hope: I see what you mean. And the points made by Aberdeen are very relevant. I was a police officer for more than thirty years in Tasmania, and in the past twenty years or so we have had no real privatisation, but there are some jobs that aren't policed now like they used to be, such as sporting events. Some of the mainland Australian states have privatised such things as their communications centres but I don't know of any operational police/ambulance/fire service roles which have been privatised. I note that the press clipping was dated Dec 2012. Have there been any further developments?
There have been continued debates regarding the subject toyomotor, but nothing more recent I could link to.
There is this news from one district where the police, through outsourcing have made quite a financial saving. However, this is only one area and it is early days.
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk...tory-19376094-detail/story.html#axzz2kfSFFf00
I personally am not sure this is the right way to go yet I understand financial climate may call for changes.
However I wonder, if an outside firm can deliver efficiently yet at less cost and still make profits, where are they making the saving ? I fear one way may be at the expense of their workforce...
Here's an idea: let's outsource policing entirely by hiring police officers on contract from Pakistan or Afghanistan. I imagine that they'd work cheaply, and it's not as if those countries have any problems with corruption or civil disorder.
This thread has been viewed 32342 times.