Where ever the Government has a monopoly on a service, the Free Market can do better

[Makalakumu]

Oh so in your world its perfectly ok for the guards to run away when the crap hits the fan as Gran said because that means they can renegotiate the contracts to charge more money. In the mean time people are having an shoot out in the street. Cops cant strike, they cant not respond to calls for emergencies. Some jobs just dont get to walk away when crap gets hard.

Id love to see the relationship between a community and its securty force every time they run away and then demand more money to act.

If the community is so messed up that they can't get a security company to contract with them or stay in there, the community itself needs to do some soul searching and figure out how to change that. This is one of things that is missing from our socialized system now. Ghettos have absolutely no incentive to change. The people can be completely dysfunctional and the government will support them on every level. In a privatized system, a two way relationship is built based on the communication between the company and the conditions of the community. These are the basic market signals that are absent because of the socialized system.

The thing that MUST be remembered is that our communities didn't just get the way they did in a vacuum. They are a product of generations of socialism. The violence and dysfunction we see now is a product of the generational removal of the market signals that tell people to change.

 

[Makalakumu]

So get rid of the constitution then since the judicial system is specifically spelled out as a power of the Govt.

I don't have to get rid of the Constitution. The government is doing that already. The Judicial System is pretty much a rubber stamp plea bargain machine. Justice be damned. Private courts would only have to figure out how to actually try cases on evidence to be better that what we have now.

How is enforcing speeding laws expensive? and how would private roads and no cops slow people down?

You would sign a contract with a private road and if you violated the terms of the contract, you would not be allowed to traverse that road. All kinds of monitoring equipment could be employed to monitor this voluntary contract. You could monitor this all electronically. And if you don't like it, you could find some other company to contract with.

So screw the will of the people that wanted these laws in the first place? Rape is a very expensive law to enforce between medical exams DNA testing and prosecution so we should just stop enforcing that one right?

No doubt people would pay to investigate and bring rapists to justice. However, if they don't have to pay for all of the other stupid laws on the books that wouldn't exist in a free market, this would actually be far cheaper than it is now. It would also be far cheaper because companies would specialize in this service and would compete for your money.

Its also the way the Constitution was set up.

This may come as a surprise, but even the Founding Fathers had significant doubts about the Constitution. I don't think we need to think of it as the perfect system.

 

[ballen0351]

By the way do you know what the guards response was after we calmed down the community. They locked it down. No one was allowed on the property that didn't live there. So if you mom wanted to come over for dinner she wasn't allowed you boy friend was coming over not allowed. If you did live in the community your vehicle and person was searched prior to entering. So they threw out your 4th amendment rights because they are private security on private property there was nothing I could do. If you lived there you were not allowed outside at all so no going out front of your building to smoke a cigarette or chat with neighbors.

Yeah that's the world I want

 

[Makalakumu]

By the way do you know what the guards response was after we calmed down the community. They locked it down. No one was allowed on the property that didn't live there. So if you mom wanted to come over for dinner she wasn't allowed you boy friend was coming over not allowed. If you did live in the community your vehicle and person was searched prior to entering. So they threw out your 4th amendment rights because they are private security on private property there was nothing I could do. If you lived there you were not allowed outside at all so no going out front of your building to smoke a cigarette or chat with neighbors.

Yeah that's the world I want

If the residents of the community don't like it, they can fire the company and hire another. If the residents don't like the cops...screw them.

That's the socialized world we currently live in.

 

[Carol]

There might be a few people who volunteer to do that in a free society. LOL

That was only half our crew, and one of two events in the state. The other event further north was well attended as well. It was a blast to do...looking forward to the next event. Even though dayglo orange is so not my color

 

[ballen0351]

If the residents of the community don't like it, they can fire the company and hire another. If the residents don't like the cops...screw them.

That's the socialized world we currently live in.

The residents that don't like the cops can file lawsuits and get the officer fired or even sent to jail. You have no rights on private property with private security.

 

[Tgace]

"I ,do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of (Insert your State here) against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"

 

[Makalakumu]

The residents that don't like the cops can file lawsuits and get the officer fired or even sent to jail. You have no rights on private property with private security.

The residents that don't like cops can file lawsuits against individual cops and perhaps get something done, but against the police force themselves? It a private company, you can get results immediately if you cancel your contract with your private police. There is no need to get lawyer or anything fancy. You just fulfill your obligation and find someone new.

Your second point about not having rights on private property makes no sense at all to me. Of course you have rights on private property. In fact, you would have more rights of redress with private security than you would against socialized cops. If the private security home invaded the wrong house because they thought you might be doing X and were wrong, they could be held responsible for this action. If someone got hurt, the private company would likely get sued out of business.

All of this would force a higher standard of evidence, would force a real customer service attitude among the police, and would act as a check against corruption...because now the cops are not the products of a socialized system. They need to conform to the market reality and read the market signs or go out of business.

 

[Makalakumu]

"I ,do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of (Insert your State here) against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"

Why aren't you heading to DC? There are plenty of threats to Constitution there!

Ok, seriously, any private company could have their members swear that. Except that once they swore that and promised it in their contractual service, they would be immediately held accountable for violating that oath. They would be held accountable through the market if they were "perceived" to violate that oath.

It's a higher level of accountability.

 

[ballen0351]

Your second point about not having rights on private property makes no sense at all to me. Of course you have rights on private property. In fact, you would have more rights of redress with private security than you would against socialized cops. If the private security home invaded the wrong house because they thought you might be doing X and were wrong, they could be held responsible for this action. If someone got hurt, the private company would likely get sued out of business.

Your wrong. When your on private property the property owners can do whatever they want. For example the apartment complex I was talking about in my example. They set up a road block and refused entry to everyone that didnt have an ID issued from the rental office. That included people that may actually live there but were not on the rental agreement. That includes your friends and family. I as a police officer cant do that. People that did live there as they entered the property had their cars and pockets searched. I as a police officer cant do that. People inside the neighborhood that live there were not allowed outside their apartments they were ordered to go inside. I as a police officer cant do that. I know for a fact these guards go into and search peoples apartments all the time with out warrants of permission. I as a police officer cant do that. They can ban people from the property permanently with out a reason. I as a police officer was able to do that until we were sued and the city lost NOW I as a police officer cannot do that. See a pattern here. I have to follow the rules of the Constitution. They dont apply to private property.

 

[ballen0351]

Why aren't you heading to DC? There are plenty of threats to Constitution there!

Ok, seriously, any private company could have their members swear that. Except that once they swore that and promised it in their contractual service, they would be immediately held accountable for violating that oath. They would be held accountable through the market if they were "perceived" to violate that oath.

It's a higher level of accountability.

Except you dont want them to swear to that. You dont want them to mess around with laws that you dont like. Laws that were passed using a process spelled out in the constitution.

 

[Makalakumu]

Your wrong. When your on private property the property owners can do whatever they want. For example the apartment complex I was talking about in my example. They set up a road block and refused entry to everyone that didnt have an ID issued from the rental office. That included people that may actually live there but were not on the rental agreement. That includes your friends and family. I as a police officer cant do that. People that did live there as they entered the property had their cars and pockets searched. I as a police officer cant do that. People inside the neighborhood that live there were not allowed outside their apartments they were ordered to go inside. I as a police officer cant do that. I know for a fact these guards go into and search peoples apartments all the time with out warrants of permission. I as a police officer cant do that. They can ban people from the property permanently with out a reason. I as a police officer was able to do that until we were sued and the city lost NOW I as a police officer cannot do that. See a pattern here. I have to follow the rules of the Constitution. They dont apply to private property.

That company can be sued by any of those residents for violating the terms of their contract. The property owner can be sued for allowing this company to violate the terms of the contract. If that company violated the residents private property, it can be sued. There is still more accountability here than would be the case with any governmental monopoly.

 

[Makalakumu]

Except you dont want them to swear to that. You dont want them to mess around with laws that you dont like. Laws that were passed using a process spelled out in the constitution.

It doesn't matter what I want. It matters what the customer wants. That is the whole point of this thread.

 

[ballen0351]

It doesn't matter what I want. It matters what the customer wants. That is the whole point of this thread.

And other then you, criminals and a few people with an axe to grind most people are OK with the way things work now

 

[Makalakumu]

And other then you, criminals and a few people with an axe to grind most people are OK with the way things work now

Is this an argument? Lol!

 

[ballen0351]

Is this an argument? Lol!

No its a fact. You said it only mattered what the people want. Well most people want things how they are now

 

[Makalakumu]

No its a fact. You said it only mattered what the people want. Well most people want things how they are now

I don't think you know that for a fact.

At any rate, so what. People in socialist countries seem to love their crappy socialized medicine. Lol

In fact, the irony here is that any argument made against socialized medicine can be made in principle against socialized policing. Also, any argument made for socialized policing could be made in principle for socialized medicine.

So funny....

 

[ballen0351]

I don't think you know that for a fact.

At any rate, so what. People in socialist countries seem to love their crappy socialized medicine. Lol

In fact, the irony here is that any argument made against socialized medicine can be made in principle against socialized policing. Also, any argument made for socialized policing could be made in principle for socialized medicine.

So funny....

So it only matters what the people want if they want what you want? People couldnt possibly see the benefits of not having a for profit police force thats only goal is higher profit margins.

Difference between socialized medicine vs Policing is we don't have national police forces. State LVL medical plans are Constitutional, Federal run health care is not.

 

[Makalakumu]

So it only matters what the people want if they want what you want? People couldnt possibly see the benefits of not having a for profit police force thats only goal is higher profit margins.

Difference between socialized medicine vs Policing is we don't have national police forces. State LVL medical plans are Constitutional, Federal run health care is not.

Did you know we used to have totally private health care and policing in this country? What happened?

The point of this thread is to make arguments for or against government monopolies, whether in policing or anything. By appealing to the people, you've committed a logical fallacy. By appealing to the Constitution, you've committed another fallacy. These aren't arguments.

Oh, and btw, we have a few federalized alphabet soup police forces that I can think of. It's only a matter of time before all cops get federalized...aka completely socialized.

 

[ballen0351]

The point of this thread is to make arguments for or against government monopolies, whether in policing or anything. By appealing to the people, you've committed a logical fallacy. By appealing to the Constitution, you've committed another fallacy. These aren't arguments.

They are arguments they are arguments against why private police forces wont work. They are arguments why we cant have private courts and judges

Oh, and btw, we have a few federalized alphabet soup police forces that I can think of. It's only a matter of time before all cops get federalized...aka completely socialized.

Fed police forces have limited jurisdictions and specific ob descriptions. They do not answer 911 calls, or preform normal police functions