Private Policing

hope: I guess that your last post was meant as a joke. Upholding the law of a country is soley the responsibility of government and it's enforcement arm, the police. Would anyone like to see the courts system taken over by a privately owned company? The police and the judiciary do not exist to show a profit, although I will admit the proliferation of speed cameras and the like might make it appear so. The problem is that society is becoming so complex with multi-culturism, civil liberties, poverty related crime etc. that police are falling behind in numbers and technology with which to combat daily societal problems. But it has been said many times that a community gets the police force it deserves. Many of the existing problems could be/should be sorted out at community level, certainly not be privatisation of police agencies.
 
hope: I guess that your last post was meant as a joke. Upholding the law of a country is soley the responsibility of government and it's enforcement arm, the police. Would anyone like to see the courts system taken over by a privately owned company? The police and the judiciary do not exist to show a profit, although I will admit the proliferation of speed cameras and the like might make it appear so. The problem is that society is becoming so complex with multi-culturism, civil liberties, poverty related crime etc. that police are falling behind in numbers and technology with which to combat daily societal problems. But it has been said many times that a community gets the police force it deserves. Many of the existing problems could be/should be sorted out at community level, certainly not be privatisation of police agencies.

Toyomotor, this is obviously an area in which you have considerable expertise, so I'd like to ask you something. I understand your comment about many existing problems being something that could be and/or should be sorted out at the community level. But it seems to me that there's an additional problem in that people who commit serious offenses often get off far too lightly these days, perhaps because the state doesn't want to pay for the cost of incarceration, so they're soon back on the street committing further offenses, causing endless grief to citizens and much more work for the police. So perhaps the cost of policing is too high because the judiciary has ceased to be effective. Just my view - what's your take on this?
 
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..love your use of the majestic plural "we" throughout your post, are you royal, a bishop, the pope? Or perhaps you have simply decided to include everyone who has posted here into your group.


I do know Karl Marx, of course.

As far as Friedrich Engles is concerned, though, I do not have the pleasure. I have read about Friedrich Engels, but I doubt the two are related. And since it's a matter of names and surnames, maybe precision is not an option: even the native speakers of universally spoken languages, as English is, should maybe respect the one and only spelling that is right, without allowing themselves to anglicize even names, and cease considering whatever anglo-saxon perspective - be it marketism or spelling of proper names - as an axiom of correctness.

As far as the supposed pluralis majestatis, no royal or pope is concerned - I was only joining my own thought with someone else's, who seemed to share my own opinion. It's not forbidden, I guess.

Best regards.
 
LeBrok, it seems you don't get it - we have no hatred towards private enterprise. Our point is different. Civil rights are not goods, they have nothing to do with production, with your "bang-for-money" logic. Nobody is saying that police shouldn't be efficient; on the contrary, we all want that. 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.
Your tendency in favour of marketism - the reduction of all aspects of human life to sheer market, to "bang-for-money" - has nothing to do with liberism or socialism or capitalism, with right or left or whatever.

I already tried to explain him that once. He is too much into money, production and market stuff :)
 
LOL hahahaha
 
LeBrok, it seems you don't get it - we have no hatred towards private enterprise.
You'd better confirm this with your new friend before assuming how he feels about this. If not hatred, how about dislike?

Civil rights are not goods, they have nothing to do with production, with your "bang-for-money" logic. Nobody is saying that police shouldn't be efficient; on the contrary, we all want that. 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.
You are deluding yourself telling us that money has or should have nothing to do with operations of civil services, like police force in this case. Everywhere we look police departments operate on a budget, and there is not even one real life example showing otherwise. Quality of police officers, their equipment and abilities to fight crime is directly related to the amount of money we, as society, spend on police schools and policing in general. It is so easy to compare police departments of western countries to their counterparts in Africa or Asia to see the difference money can make. Don't you think that Pakistan, Angola or Vietnam wouldn't like to have well trained and well equipped police force as you have in Italy?
Would you rather tell them "Forget about money, it is not important, just believe in your civil rights"?
Also when you look at statistics you see that amount of corruption in police forces is inversely related to the cops salaries. The more cops make the less corruptible they become. But somehow you claim that we must not introduce money related mechanisms to the equation, and money shouldn't count at all. Maybe in your perfect word in you head it's the case, but in real world money already is in equation of running police departments, and in very major way. So please get off you ideological horse and smell the real world. Or even better, ask policemen in your city to work for minimum wage. You don't want them to be influence by it, do you?

I would like to mention that there are already many cities with private contractors running some aspects of policing as in service of parking control or speeding cameras, and other auxiliary ways. Therefore it shouldn't be too difficult for you, to find cases of privatization going wrong, or at least working worse that when these services were in public hands, to prove your point. Otherwise your idea of corrupting the system or police force being less efficient while in private hands is just a pure speculation and it will remain so. I've heard similar voices to yours arguing in exactly same way against privatization of airlines, insurance, mines, or liquor. We know now they were wrong, airplanes are not falling down from the sky from lack of maintenance, and nation is not drunk all the time, regardless of companies making profit.

Would you rather want government running cell phone services or even producing smart phones in Italy?



Your tendency in favour of marketism - the reduction of all aspects of human life to sheer market, to "bang-for-money" - has nothing to do with liberism or socialism or capitalism, with right or left or whatever.
Stop exaggerating. Where did I say something like that?
What would you propose instead of Free Market?

Marketism has no political colour, it's a venom that's gradually poisoning all governments, no matter communist or liberal or whatever, by substitution of money and economics in place of principles and ideas.
Did you ever asked yourself a question when would humankind be without economy, without any production? Where would humankind be with only the principles and ideas? Did you find answer in books you've read? I don't think so, so let me answer it.
In caves without stone tools, because to make any tool it is an act of production.
In case you don't agree, please give us an example of human existence without any production. On other hand I can give you examples of existence of people without noble ideas or civil rights. I'm talking about examples to prove importance of production, not about my favorite state of affair, so don't jump into one of your quick assumptions.




Again, we are not against money and economics, but the tendency - which you clearly display -
Of course you like money, you can exchange it for someone else's sweat and hard work, to get stuff. You're sitting today in a warm cosy house (production) with belly full of good Italian food (production) in front of your computer with Eupedia on (production) and teaching us of non importance of production (money). lol
 
Last edited:
Toyomotor, this is obviously an area in which you have considerable expertise, so I'd like to ask you something. I understand your comment about many existing problems being something that could be and/or should be sorted out at the community level. But it seems to me that there's an additional problem in that people who commit serious offenses often get off far too lightly these days, perhaps because the state doesn't want to pay for the cost of incarceration, so they're soon back on the street committing further offenses, causing endless grief to citizens and much more work for the police. So perhaps the cost of policing is too high because the judiciary has ceased to be effective. Just my view - what's your take on this?

Aberdeen, you're correct. The Justice System, at least in Australia, seems to be slanted towards the perpetrator rather than the victim, for example, a drunk driver, speeding and on the wrong side of the road crashes into an oncoming car, killing two people. Convicted and sentenced to 12months imprisonment, which, with parole, means a maximum of six months. Violent offender assaults innocent victim causing permanent injury gets good behaviour bond. The Judiciary appears to have lost touch with the needs of society for retribution, as well as rehabilitation.
 
First you said this:
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.
Then you said this:
But it seems to me that there's an additional problem in that people who commit serious offenses often get off far too lightly these days, perhaps because the state doesn't want to pay for the cost of incarceration, so they're soon back on the street committing further offenses, causing endless grief to citizens and much more work for the police. So perhaps the cost of policing is too high because the judiciary has ceased to be effective. Just my view - what's your take on this?
Don't you think you're contradicting yourself?
 
No LeBrok, I am not contradicting myself - for the simple reason that the two statements you quoted do not come both from me.
 
No LeBrok, I am not contradicting myself - for the simple reason that the two statements you quoted do not come both from me.
Not much of a team now? That's the reason you shouldn't use we when you voice your opinions only.
 
You'd better confirm this with your new friend before assuming how he feels about this. If not hatred, how about dislike?

Of course it’s dislike, but – what you seem to refuse understanding – it’s dislike of private enterprise IN THE MATTER OF CIVIL RIGHTS ONLY. Private enterprise is good, but NOT EVERYWHERE, understand?

You are deluding yourself telling us that money has or should have nothing to do with operations of civil services, like police force in this case. Everywhere we look police departments operate on a budget, and there is not even one real life example showing otherwise. Quality of police officers, their equipment and abilities to fight crime is directly related to the amount of money we, as society, spend on police schools and policing in general. It is so easy to compare police departments of western countries to their counterparts in Africa or Asia to see the difference money can make. Don't you think that Pakistan, Angola or Vietnam wouldn't like to have well trained and well equipped police force as you have in Italy?
Would you rather tell them "Forget about money, it is not important, just believe in your civil rights"?
Also when you look at statistics you see that amount of corruption in police forces is inversely related to the cops salaries. The more cops make the less corruptible they become. But somehow you claim that we must not introduce money related mechanisms to the equation, and money shouldn't count at all. Maybe in your perfect word in you head it's the case, but in real world money already is in equation of running police departments, and in very major way. So please get off you ideological horse and smell the real world. Or even better, ask policemen in your city to work for minimum wage. You don't want them to be influence by it, do you?

I would like to mention that there are already many cities with private contractors running some aspects of policing as in service of parking control or speeding cameras, and other auxiliary ways. Therefore it shouldn't be too difficult for you, to find cases of privatization going wrong, or at least working worse that when these services were in public hands, to prove your point. Otherwise your idea of corrupting the system or police force being less efficient while in private hands is just a pure speculation and it will remain so. I've heard similar voices to yours arguing in exactly same way against privatization of airlines, insurance, mines, or liquor. We know now they were wrong, airplanes are not falling down from the sky from lack of maintenance, and nation is not drunk all the time, regardless of companies making profit.

Your argument is a gross oversimplification, LeBrok. Nobody here is denying the relevance of budget and cost on the efficiency of police – but one thing is to perform police activity with CIVIL RIGHTS as the primary objective, whatever hindrance the shortage of resources may be, and a totally different thing is to perform police activity with PROFIT as the primary objective.
I’d rather live in a country – like Italy – where police forces do what they can with the modest budget they get from the government to ensure the enforcement OF LAW FOR THE LAW’S SAKE, than in another country where a hypotetical private police could count on an immense budget coming from private capital to ensure the enforcement OF PROFIT FOR PRIVATE INTERESTS’ SAKE.
Would you appreciate a scenario where any stakeholder of your beloved ACME Private Police Company had you arrested without you having committed any crime, just for political, religious, business or whatever trivial reasons, maybe just to get you out of his way? What would you do then – call the police??


Did you ever asked yourself a question when would humankind be without economy, without any production? Where would humankind be with only the principles and ideas? Did you find answer in books you've read? I don't think so, so let me answer it.
In caves without stone tools, because to make any tool it is an act of production.
In case you don't agree, please give us an example of human existence without any production. On other hand I can give you examples of existence of people without noble ideas or civil rights. I'm talking about examples to prove importance of production, not about my favorite state of affair, so don't jump into one of your quick assumptions.

Ok, LeBrok – since economics, production and money is your first and predominant value, I have nothing more to discuss with you. Here in Europe, where we taught THE WHOLE WORLD how to use brains, we still keep higher values than “free market”, which is a wonderful thing in general - but NOT in those few aspects of life where it can affect the sacred principles of democracy itself. But I doubt you’ll understand.
 
Not much of a team now? That's the reason you shouldn't use we when you voice your opinions only.

With your permission (or without - it's the same), I used "we" where I had something shared with previous statements of other users. NOT where YOU think there were opinions shared. Period.
 
Look at real life and learn. Socialistic economy doesn't work! It was experimentally proven on real people in real time. What else do you need?

Wrong. The only thing that was proven is that socialist economy didn't work in the hostile capitalist environment that was dedicated into proving that it doesn't work.



Did you ever asked yourself a question when would humankind be without economy, without any production? Where would humankind be with only the principles and ideas? Did you find answer in books you've read? I don't think so, so let me answer it.
In caves without stone tools, because to make any tool it is an act of production.
In case you don't agree, please give us an example of human existence without any production. On other hand I can give you examples of existence of people without noble ideas or civil rights. I'm talking about examples to prove importance of production, not about my favorite state of affair, so don't jump into one of your quick assumptions.
Take your own advice and ....
Stop exaggerating.

From economy and profit to principles and ideas is a very long path, BTW.



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?

It seems like you think that without production one can't be well. Why would one tune himself into such a destructive pattern?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080718181425AAaRAIv




Too much socialism kills economy quickly.
Too much capitalism kills people and darkens the souls and hearts of survivors.
 
First you said this:

Then you said this:

Don't you think you're contradicting yourself?

Nobody is contradicting themselves when two different people who live on different continents and who have never talked to each other by private message say different things. But I don't see a contradiction between Thule saying that money should not count in matters of civil rights and my saying that people's civil rights are compromised when the judiciary doesn't do what it should because of financial restrictions. IMO, the rights of the majority are compromised when career criminals go free because a government decides to cut prison budgets in order to give the rich another tax cut.

As for capitalism, I see it as being like a horse. It can be a very useful creature when it's properly tamed and trained, but if you let it run wild and do whatever it likes, it will do more harm than good. Tell me, LeBrok, are you a fairly recent immigrant from China? Because I think only a Chinese communist would have such an unbridled love of capitalism.
 
As for capitalism, I see it as being like a horse. It can be a very useful creature when it's properly tamed and trained, but if you let it run wild and do whatever it likes, it will do more harm than good.

Perfect.
Or even comparable to fire - absolutely necessary for human life, but if you let it go free and wild it will burn your ***
 
IMO, the rights of the majority are compromised when career criminals go free because a government decides to cut prison budgets in order to give the rich another tax cut
.
Which government declared they had done this?

As for capitalism, I see it as being like a horse. It can be a very useful creature when it's properly tamed and trained, but if you let it run wild and do whatever it likes, it will do more harm than good.
This makes no sense. A horse is wild by nature. The fire comparison works better.

As you will likely be aware, we in the U.K. are currently facing George Osbornes austerity plan for a "leaner" and "more efficient" Britain. Certainly no-one wishes to live in a Britain that is obese or inefficient.
That said, the cuts being made in order to balance the deficit are wide spreading. Almost all sections of public spending have been reduced. These cuts have affected, IMO, those people already facing hardship. Like many, I would rather we were not in such a position..so please tell me, how would you address the situation?
 
Wrong. The only thing that was proven is that socialist economy didn't work in the hostile capitalist environment that was dedicated into proving that it doesn't work.
So are you saying this is the one and only reason it failed?

It seems like you think that without production one can't be well. Why would one tune himself into such a destructive pattern?
Yes, of course if a country does not produce, it will not "be well". Why would you even think different?

Too much capitalism kills people and darkens the souls and hearts of survivors.
Oh come on Ike, this is somewhat over the top. Darkened hearts and souls.....
 
So are you saying this is the one and only reason it failed?
Probably not, but we couldn't have seen the rest because they were in the shadow of aforementioned.

Yes, of course if a country does not produce, it will not "be well". Why would you even think different?
Should it produce more than it can utilize?

Oh come on Ike, this is somewhat over the top. Darkened hearts and souls.....
When you evaluate everything through the prism of money, you end up putting price tags on land, air, knowledge, human organs, art, etc. Prolonged exposition leaves one selfish, greedy, materialistic and spiritually blind. That's where I see the western culture and state of mind right now. Fascinating - it is continuing its degradation, even after the fall of Iron Curtain. There were times when I hoped it was just fear from being overtaken by commies, but sadly it seems not.
 
.
Which government declared they had done this?


This makes no sense. A horse is wild by nature. The fire comparison works better.

As you will likely be aware, we in the U.K. are currently facing George Osbornes austerity plan for a "leaner" and "more efficient" Britain. Certainly no-one wishes to live in a Britain that is obese or inefficient.
That said, the cuts being made in order to balance the deficit are wide spreading. Almost all sections of public spending have been reduced. These cuts have affected, IMO, those people already facing hardship. Like many, I would rather we were not in such a position..so please tell me, how would you address the situation?

An untrained horse is wild but horses can be domesticated and put to good use if properly controlled, just like capitalism and fire. I did like the fire analogy. As for which countries have decided to cut the budgets of various government programs, yours is one of them. I haven't checked to see what's happening with Britain's prison budget, but I have my suspicions. In any case, cuts to poverty programs and basic services do a lot to make life less safe, but such decisions also hamper the economy. Has it never occurred to you that Britain's problems are a direct result of income inequity that has been created by union busting and an unfair tax system? Austerity helps the rich (especially if they're getting yet another tax cut as a result) but it harms the economy overall.
 
Of course it’s dislike, but – what you seem to refuse understanding – it’s dislike of private enterprise IN THE MATTER OF CIVIL RIGHTS ONLY. Private enterprise is good, but NOT EVERYWHERE, understand?
Ok, if Civil Rights are not for sale, what about our health, nutrients and taste?
What about food production and distribution? Let's proclaim that our health is not for sale either, and frown upon a profit.
In either circumstance, the only question is how do we know that, what we have so far, is the best system to work for us, and if we are not sure why wouldn't we experiment to create something better? How else we will know? Because you said so?


Your argument is a gross oversimplification, LeBrok. Nobody here is denying the relevance of budget and cost on the efficiency of police – but one thing is to perform police activity with CIVIL RIGHTS as the primary objective, whatever hindrance the shortage of resources may be, and a totally different thing is to perform police activity with PROFIT as the primary objective.
What is the primary objective of police officers? Make the paycheque and feed their family perhaps? And yet it doesn't conflict with doing their job right. Same with for profit organizations, either police or food industry, they will do their job right in most circumstances.
I hope that you realise that you failed to deliver even one example to make your speculation convincing. On other hand we can find examples from many cities with parking and traffic cameras proving that for profit system works as good as public sector in law enforcement. Here is a page about privately owned prisons in USA and UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison
They seem to work fine, however they confirmed my suspicion (from post 14) that it is hard to really make them efficient in cost savings in lack of real competition and free market.
The reason I mentioned this is that when privatization of police force happens and one company wins the bid, it is unlikely that it will end up being run better than in public hands, in both cases in monopolistic style.
But at least they are trying to come up with system improvement instead of sitting on status quo constantly repeating your mantra "Civil Rights are not for sell"



I’d rather live in a country – like Italy – where police forces do what they can with the modest budget they get from the government to ensure the enforcement OF LAW FOR THE LAW’S SAKE, than in another country where a hypotetical private police could count on an immense budget coming from private capital to ensure the enforcement OF PROFIT FOR PRIVATE INTERESTS’ SAKE.
Would you appreciate a scenario where any stakeholder of your beloved ACME Private Police Company had you arrested without you having committed any crime, just for political, religious, business or whatever trivial reasons, maybe just to get you out of his way? What would you do then – call the police??
What is a difference when state run police arrests journalists or opposition members in Russia? Who you're going to call?
Also corruption affairs of New York city are well documented. Somehow Civil Rights turned to be for sale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department_corruption_and_misconduct
Should we dig some more for sale cops in Italian files?
Right.


Ok, LeBrok – since economics, production and money is your first and predominant value, I have nothing more to discuss with you. Here in Europe, where we taught THE WHOLE WORLD how to use brains, we still keep higher values than “free market”, which is a wonderful thing in general - but NOT in those few aspects of life where it can affect the sacred principles of democracy itself. But I doubt you’ll understand.
Too bad the empirical real life examples mean nothing to you, and that you can't see the tremendous value of production and fee market in rise of our western civilisation.
Please give me a one example of modern well functioning Democratic System in non free market capitalist economy environment.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 31805 times.

Back
Top