Private Policing

[toyomotor]

This thread has gone seriously off topic!

 

[hope]

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]

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]

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/

 

[Aberdeen]

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]

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_misconduct
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]

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]

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.