PDA

View Full Version : Private Policing



hope
03-03-12, 18:50
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?

toyomotor
13-11-13, 05:15
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.

Thulean
13-11-13, 10:35
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?

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!

LeBrok
13-11-13, 17:07
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.

Aberdeen
13-11-13, 19:03
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.

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.

hope
13-11-13, 21:35
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.

Well toyomotor, as I understand it, because of pressure to meet financial budgets, the police force are finding that "outsourcing" to the private sector is a way of "balancing" the books.
Certain roles that would normally be undertaken by trained police officers, will now be performed by security firms..it will go out to "tender".
I had to search these links out but you might like to give them a read for fuller insight.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/privatisation-of-our-frontline-services-how-police-1385838

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/20/g4s-chief-mass-police-privatisation

LeBrok
14-11-13, 05:34
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.

Aberdeen
14-11-13, 09:53
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.

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. 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. A purely capitalist system is one where the means of production are privately owned. 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. 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. 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.

Canada is also perhaps still closer to social democracy than pure capitalism, although Harpo is trying to change that. 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. Too bad they moved away from that towards a more purely capitalist system with the so-called "Reagan revolution". It's left many Americans living in poverty.

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.

Aberdeen
14-11-13, 17:45
To return to the actual topic of this thread, I think that privatizing any aspect of policing creates far too many opportunities for corruption and obstruction of justice. Even in countries where the official police forces haven't been privatized, I think we need to look carefully at the impact of private security firms and how they affect communities. Of course, as long as we have excessive levels of immigration that are designed to keep wages down in developed countries, governments that are unwilling to spend money on integrating immigrants and other disaffected groups into the mainstream and a judiciary that's been instructed to limit the incarceration of offenders because of costs that a damaged tax system can no longer cope with, a lot of businesses will feel the need to continue to depend on private security firms, but I wonder about their impact on a supposedly democratic society.

toyomotor
14-11-13, 21:36
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?

Thulean
14-11-13, 22:59
I am not socialist at all, but capitalism is no better when it comes to law and rights. Instead of enslaving individuals to some ideology, it enslaves them to money. What good is that? It's just about time to stop this myth of production: law cannot be subdued to economic-biased ways of thinking. As a citizen, and as a judge as well, I am horrified by the perspective that the enforcement of law can be tied to private (=profitable) logics - so one day certain parts of the country, certain sectors of human activities will be left unguarded, just because the cost/benefit balance is not "productive". A citizen's rights are not for sale!

LeBrok
15-11-13, 05:07
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.
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.
To make the story short, economy of millions of people is extremely hard to figure out on a fly, what is needed, how much to produce, what prices to set, and where to invest capital. Giving the fact that with absence of real owners nobody really cares and responsibility is low, that's a recipe for disaster. Real socialism was tried in many countries, it either collapsed by itself like soviet block, or some smart countries moved away from it, selling state run companies like England or Sweden.
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?


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. 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.
You see if something doesn't work, like socialism, people get unhappy. People want to change the system but government won't budge, therefore you will end up with dictatorship, either of one party or one leader.
I'm glad European communist leaders finally understood the shortcomings of socialism and gave away power in bloodless way, well almost.


A purely capitalist system is one where the means of production are privately owned. 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 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. I'm also for implementing some features of socialism into capitalism in some sectors and giving helping hand to unfortunate.



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. 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.




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. What are you implying emigration has to do with swing to the right? Are all emigrants the same in their convictions and beliefs?


Canada is also perhaps still closer to social democracy than pure capitalism 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?


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. And it brought US to economic stagnation of 70s and 80s till Reagan fixed it. Too much socialism kills economy quickly.


It's left many Americans living in poverty.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.


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.
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.
Embrace good ol' capitalism and from rugs to riches in 30 years. But I guess real life examples of success don't register in your romantically socialistic mind.

Aberdeen
15-11-13, 05:20
Well. LeBrok, if you have your own set of definitions, and your own private set of facts, I see no point in trying to discuss this to you. In any case, our discussion was taking the thread off course. How do you feel about the privatization of police forces? Do you think big corporations should decide what laws should be enforced?

LeBrok
15-11-13, 07:02
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. If they can better function as a privately run company then be it. However I'm not sure if it was ever done in the past, so who knows how this experiment would pan out. I wish there was already a real life example to tell you better.
Contrary to what you think capitalism is not a free for all wild west. Capitalism operates in environment of consumers and governmental regulations. We learned from the past that it works the best in environment of competition. Once monopoly of market is reached by any company it stops being efficient and doesn't benefit society much. The famous case of AT&T monopoly in US, when telephone calls were expensive and all phones were only in black, lol. 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.
Perhaps best solution would be to split bids for every city district being run by different companies? After few years make statistics and kick out under-performers, replacing them with new ones. Who knows? Sometimes we have to experiment and see what works what doesn't. How else we are going to know, from books?


To understand my point better, I have to mention that I'm not pro capitalism because of my traditions, upbringing, education or just because I like the name. If I knew life only from books I definitely were communist. The hunter-gatherer instinct is strong in me and I would love nothing better than share equally with all my tribe members and be inclusive and equal class. But at the end of the day, no matter what I feel, the real life shows what works and what doesn't. The environment is so complicated that it is impossible for human mind to create best system without running the "experiment" on real human beings. That's why Marx and Engels failed, although their ideas are very noble and smart on paper.
Capitalism and free market economy on the other hand wasn't created as a complete system by a person or even a group. It started slowly 500 years ago in England with help of growing modern banking system from Italy, Banci - Banchieri. It grew, it evolved, it adapted till today's form. It is an evolutionary system therefore quite flexible. When you look around you will notice that most prosperous countries in today's world got to this point using this system in their economies. It had beat the feudalism and socialism, and it is still here not because of its pretty eyes. China switched to it, and so did India in last decades. Together they pulled over 500 million people from poverty to the middle class in just last decade. That's how you measure benefits to society.

Thulean
15-11-13, 09:03
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.



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. 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. Again, we are not against money and economics, but the tendency - which you clearly display - to reduce ALL to money and economics cannot be accepted. Nothing strange that Jesus cleansed the temple from the merchants: let them make money wherever they want, but NOT in the very heart where human values are kept.
Btw - since you seem so proficient on the subject, could you please explain me who are those Marks and Angles guys that you quoted?

Aberdeen
15-11-13, 14:46
.............
Btw - since you seem so proficient on the subject, could you please explain me who are those Marks and Angles guys that you quoted?

I believe they're a subsidiary of Marks and Spencers. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/laughing.gif

hope
15-11-13, 16:14
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.

Yes, but there are those who could likewise argue the financial cuts and pressure to keep on budget placed upon the police force in the first place, has brought such money related matters where money should not count. Therefore this observation is akin to bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.


Btw - since you seem so proficient on the subject, could you please explain me who are those Marks and Angles guys that you quoted?
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.

hope
15-11-13, 17:16
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/Lincolnshire-Police-G4S-5m-savings/story-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...

Aberdeen
15-11-13, 19:02
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/Lincolnshire-Police-G4S-5m-savings/story-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...

Ah, yes, the financial climate. Taxes are slashed for the rich and unions are weakened in order to stimulate the economy, then the economy slows down because ordinary folk have no money to spend, so we decide to cut government spending, outsource jobs to the third world and reduce taxes for the rich in order to stimulate the economy. And things slide even further.

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.

hope
15-11-13, 19:55
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.

Many police officers from Northern Ireland have been employed by private security firms in Afghanistan. Perhaps if the powers that be decide to act on your idea, we might get some of them back.

toyomotor
16-11-13, 02:42
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.

Aberdeen
16-11-13, 04:03
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?

Thulean
16-11-13, 18:34
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.

Ike
16-11-13, 19:31
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 :)

Thulean
16-11-13, 20:03
LOL hahahaha

LeBrok
17-11-13, 00:33
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

toyomotor
17-11-13, 02:37
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.

LeBrok
17-11-13, 03:46
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?

Thulean
17-11-13, 09:14
No LeBrok, I am not contradicting myself - for the simple reason that the two statements you quoted do not come both from me.

LeBrok
17-11-13, 09:24
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.

Thulean
17-11-13, 10:01
[QUOTE]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.

Thulean
17-11-13, 10:03
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.

Ike
17-11-13, 12:27
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.

Aberdeen
17-11-13, 17:47
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.

Thulean
17-11-13, 18:00
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 ***

hope
17-11-13, 19:01
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?

hope
17-11-13, 19:15
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.....

Ike
17-11-13, 20:01
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.

Aberdeen
17-11-13, 21:09
.
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.

LeBrok
17-11-13, 22:56
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_mis conduct
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.

toyomotor
18-11-13, 02:56
This thread has gone seriously off topic!

hope
18-11-13, 16:30
An untrained horse is wild but horses can be domesticated and put to good use if properly controlled, just like capitalism and fire..
So you think capitalism can be good, if used properly. I see.

I haven't checked to see what's happening with Britain's prison budget
You haven`t checked? Yet you still make a statement regarding it.
There are in fact, a handful of prisons which have been run by private firms for twenty years or more.


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.
I am still debating if the tone of your question is somewhat patronising....although I am sure this was not intended.
Yes, this thought had "occurred" to me, along with many others, including how this latest round of cuts will effect the physical and mental health of those less able to absorb them. However, that is probably best left to another thread.

LeBrok
18-11-13, 19:03
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.
I don't expect any better understanding from disillusioned Yugoslavian communist party member. You are a good man Ike, I mean it, but you've got stuck in the past with your romantic sole.


From economy and profit to principles and ideas is a very long path, BTW.
This wasn't really an issue. The issue rather was that profit might influence principle of policing system when private enterprise will run it. I'm arguing that it won't affect it more than it is already affected by budgeting and police salaries. Therefore I'm ready to experiment.


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
Once again I'm asking you to be a Ghandi and do what you say. Live in empty cave without tools, fire, cloths and food. All of these are products of human work (production), so your principles are not distorted. I think you would like it. I would leave you your laptop and internet connection though, so you can tell us how happy you are there.


Too much capitalism kills people and darkens the souls and hearts of survivors.
Not mentioning too much socialism and communism. We even know the death count from Russia and China.
Should we start a lesson about ill effect of everything in overdose? Let's start from water and food.
Ike, how do you measure that we achieved stage of too much production? Please, if you answer it, give us some facts and stats, and not your feelings on the subject. We already know them.

Ike
18-11-13, 19:37
I don't expect any better understanding from disillusioned Yugoslavian communist party member. You are a good man Ike, I mean it, but you've got stuck in the past with your romantic sole.
There is no past LeBrok. Everything is the same for thousands of years, just different toys. How can you not see that...



This wasn't really an issue. The issue rather was that profit might influence principle of policing system when private enterprise will run it. I'm arguing that it won't affect it more than it is already affected by budgeting and police salaries. Therefore I'm ready to experiment.
Me too, but not with the police. Private policemen on the streets? Hmmm... Why do I get an idea they won't work (primarily) for the benefit of the society.




Once again I'm asking you to be a Ghandi and do what you say. Live in empty cave without tools, fire, cloths and food. All of these are products of human work (production), so your principles are not distorted. I think you would like it. I would leave you your laptop and internet connection though, so you can tell us how happy you are there.
You're taking it over the top again. When I was talking about production mania, I wasn't aiming for a caveman apathy. I'm not trying to push a nymphomaniac into celibate.


Not mentioning too much socialism and communism. We even know the death count from Russia and China. I know the death toll from US, but that's a different topic :)


Ike, how do you measure that we achieved stage of too much production? Please, if you answer it, give us some facts and stats, and not your feelings on the subject. We already know them.
When people on TV (politicians) start talking about deficit and national debt. That's when. I'm aware that whole Europe lives in wealth and abundance just because some other 3rd world countries are convicted to a life of debt slavery. We could help them, but we won't. Why? Because that would knock us down. So we don't.

In fact you and I are literally guilty for millions of deaths right now:
http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/06/06/pollution-in-northern-hemisphere-helped-cause-1980s-african-drought/ (http://slashdot.org/story/13/06/09/001258/northern-hemisphere-pollution-a-cause-of-80s-africa-drought)

Aberdeen
18-11-13, 19:42
This thread has gone seriously off topic!

Perhaps. But I think that the argument that underfunding of essential services is necessary because of tax cuts for the rich and that contracting out essential services, supposedly to save money, because of tax cuts for the rich, are part of the same neoconservative agenda, so I see the conversations about whether we should worship the holy god of capital as being part of this issue. I also think, based on my experience with government departments contracting out other types of activities, that the usual result is higher costs and poorer services compared to work done in-house. We can see the same problem with medical care in the U.S., since their private system of healthcare is the most expensive in the world and one of the least effective of any developed country. So I think the private sector should stick to doing those things it does well, such as manufacturing, retailing and food services, and leave things like policing and prisons to the public sector, where the focus is on best practices, rather than $. However, that's just my opinion, and clearly some people disagree.

Thulean
18-11-13, 23:19
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?



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.

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"




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_mis conduct
Should we dig some more for sale cops in Italian files?
Right.



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.

LeBrok, your logic is weak. You have lost the case, there’s nothing to do.

1) What the heck does food have to do with the privatization of the police? Both need some form of public control in order to avoid the risks of profit-only tendencies, which you crave so much, but Toyomotor is right: you are totally OFF TOPIC. Argument rejected.
2) What the heck does the police officers’ paycheque have to do with the aforementioned subject? Of course it’s ok for EMPLOYEES to work for money - what is not ok is that private police COMPANIES would operate PRIMARILY FOR PROFIT, and not primarily for justice. Argument rejected.
3) As far as delivering examples of how well private companies work for public services, there’s a ton around. Just to mention the nearest cases, the town where I live recently made an agreement with a private company for traffic light cameras. After two years, the Corte dei conti (our special jurisdiction for public expense) had them all charged and sentenced because they proceeded illegally to make a heap of money from supposed red- and yellow- light trespassers. And now please don’t start with the Italian mafia crap - I live in Friuli and there’s plenty of data proving we are not affected by corruption here. Which simply means, money is money like everywhere in the world, and it should NOT be allowed to command over civil rights.
4) You are an extremist. I am saying that capitalism, economics and production are fine –EXCEPT WHERE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED, where money cannot be the first object of interest, but simply one of the secondary interests involved. On the other hand, you assume that profit should rule the world, in fact here you’re attacking anyone who wants to make some exceptions to this wild marketism.

By the way – I happen to be a judge and I’ve been working on administrative and public law for 15 years now, after studying Italian and comparative law for seven years, with special focus on the privatization of public services. So if you don’t mind (and if you do, it’s the same), I guess I know the subject a little better than you. Best regards.

LeBrok
19-11-13, 04:56
LeBrok, your logic is weak. You have lost the case, there’s nothing to do.

By the way – I happen to be a judge and I’ve been working on administrative and public law for 15 years now, after studying Italian and comparative law for seven years, with special focus on the privatization of public services. So if you don’t mind (and if you do, it’s the same), I guess I know the subject a little better than you. Best regards

...Argument rejected.

Off course you are. Your commending attitude really shows here. lol
Just don't forget that your "jurisdiction" doesn't mean much here.


1) What the heck does food have to do with the privatization of the police? Both need some form of public control in order to avoid the risks of profit-only tendencies, which you crave so much, but Toyomotor is right: you are totally OFF TOPIC. Argument rejected.
Because food means nutrients, energy, health, even life. I can argue that health and life is the most precious thing that we have, and I'm sure most will agree. Somehow in your logic it is ok to allow private companies to produce and distribute food, but not ok to distribute policing. How would you put it " health is for sell but not the justice"? It feels almost like your priorities are messed up, and your agenda skewed towards justice system. I must say, it is not very just of you for this preferential treatment of what you are emotionally attached to, not very just I must say again.


2) What the heck does the police officers’ paycheque have to do with the aforementioned subject? Of course it’s ok for EMPLOYEES to work for money - what is not ok is that private police COMPANIES would operate PRIMARILY FOR PROFIT, and not primarily for justice. Argument rejected.
Either company or police officers work for money? Money, money, money, call it profit, salary, income, service pay, compensation or whatever you want. For this reason they care more for a job, not to lose the good income. By the same token private company tries to do the job right, not to lose the contract and the income too.
In a perfect world we could find enough dedicated and justice loving people, not caring for what they make in money terms, to do their job perfectly. In that case I would agree with your position without hesitation. But in real world we have to rely on other forcings to make sure people do their job right, like money, pride, supervision and good schooling. For that reason private companies come very handy in our economy as they provide good supervision and efficiency over labour force. What I can't understand is your overwhelming assurance, without empirical evidence, that only police service in public hands can do the job right, or do the job at all. This doesn't sit well in my scientific mind.


3) As far as delivering examples of how well private companies work for public services, there’s a ton around. Just to mention the nearest cases, the town where I live recently made an agreement with a private company for traffic light cameras. After two years, the Corte dei conti (our special jurisdiction for public expense) had them all charged and sentenced because they proceeded illegally to make a heap of money from supposed red- and yellow- light trespassers.Thanks for real life example. What was the name of this company if you don't mind me asking?
So what happened next, new company or reversal to public run unit?


And now please don’t start with the Italian mafia crap -Is this another assumption of yours? Who said mafia? I'm sure we can find many exploits of your policing system without involving mafia in it. Right?


I live in Friuli and there’s plenty of data proving we are not affected by corruption here. Which simply means, money is money like everywhere in the world, and it should NOT be allowed to command over civil rights. It was always affected by money. If you don't have enough money in justice system or prisons then many offenders will fall through the cracks. If you don't have money for administrative talent more corruption will happen and more money will be wasted in lack of efficient organization. Would you be judge if you were paid average Italian salary?


4) You are an extremist. I am saying that capitalism, economics and production are fine –EXCEPT WHERE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED, where money cannot be the first object of interest, but simply one of the secondary interests involved. Sure, in perfect world, and I would be the first messiah. Talking to you is like talking with someone who was born in rich family and never in his life had care for the money... and I am the extremist, because I care how public money is spend, and I don't mind to look for new or better ways to do public service.
Be my guest, cook yourself nicely in your conservative ideas of only public police system. On other had it suits the judge, we don't want them to be open minded and with initiative. ;)



On the other hand, you assume that profit should rule the world, in fact here you’re attacking anyone who wants to make some exceptions to this wild marketism.
Aren't we all here for a good debate and perhaps learning something new? It is my passion and calling. And yes, I love justice. I'm sorry if you didn't have fun.
I realize that sometimes I sound harsh or disrespectful, but it is never my aim.



On the other hand, you assume that profit should rule the world,
I see economic, political, governance or judicial systems as tools for human betterment. That's all it is in nutshell. I'm not traditional by any stretch and very open to new ideas. Just make a valid argument why only public system will work in policing and I'll agree with you.

Thulean
20-11-13, 21:23
1) Jurisdiction doesn’t mean much here – but experience and knowledge mean a lot. And there’s no question who has more on the subject, between you and me.
2) I have no preferential treatment for justice issues over food issues – I just stick to the topic of the forum, unlike you.
3) Police officers work for money – but if they get orders and funds from a private company, which has profit as its primary aim (and all the rest must follow, law and civil rights included), then it’s not the same as if they get orders and funds from the public hand, which has law and civil rights as its primary aim. It is undeniable that a private police system is prone to much bigger risks of interference with private interests than a public police system; and it is equally undeniable that the aforementioned risks are so serious and grave for citizens and democracy itself, that no advantage in terms of budget can possibly outweight them and make them acceptable. Justice and efficiency should converge as much as possible; but from the point where the two may come in conflict, not an inch of justice can be ventured in change for more economical resources. Otherwise, it’s the beginning of end of your own rights.
4) The name of the company is ‘Traffic Tecnology’ [spelled like that]. After the disastrous results, the city council broke the agreement and now traffic light cameras are operated by the local (public) police.
5) It’s clear already how affected by money you have always been. This doesn’t mean everybody are or should be, though. In fact, there’s other people who keep higher values as priorities. As far as I am concerned - since you’re asking -I made much more money when I was an attorney than now that I am a judge, and still I don’t make any of the fuss you’re putting up. Not everything is for sale, you know; some people do things they believe in, even if they earn less or nothing.
6) Looking for new or better ways to do public service is right – thinking that private police is a good solution is wrong, since it’s against logic (which does not encourage such a risky idea, risky in the sense I have already explained) and against experience (which gives plenty of examples of private maladministration, subdued to trivial influences, no matter how high the private budget may be).
All in all, it’s a matter of balance between risk and result. In theory, private policing could give equal or better results than public policing, but the risk involved – risk for your own civil rights, LeBrok – would fall upon so important values (law, justice, democracy), that the idea is simply not acceptable.