So, is privatizing police duties the start of a trend? Article within... (Chicago)

[dross]

If there is a profit incentive then you run the risk that the police will decide not to provide services to people who can't pay.

If there was an absolute way to ensure that the same Constututional constraints pplied to them as to the government then it wouldn't be as troubling. I'm not 100% sure (IANAL) but I don't think the courts have found that to b the case. With few execeptions, companies can't be found to have violated people's rights.

However, you are also not addressing my point that it doesn't matter financially if the police are employed by a private company or directly by the government if the government is still paying the private company for its services. The government is still paying for the police out of our tax dollars (with the requisite mark-up for profit) but without the direct control & Constitutional protections.

Unless you make it a true "free-market" transaction where people directly contract out police protection then you end up getting less for more money. It happens with government contractors all the time.

If you actually are suggesting a "free market" individual contract then you will have the situation of the poor having no police protection at all because of a lack of ability to pay. This would be exacerbated if, as some other libertarians have suggested, we make the judiciary "free-market" as well. So much for "equal protection".

Here's the thing - no matter how you set up your system, there will always be a self-interest motive. That never changes, the only thing that changes is the currency you deal in.

I don't advocate a privatized police force that sets their own standards. A privatized force must answer to government - that can't be outsourced. I'm just talking about the mechanism whereby that service is provided. Now, you say government contracting doesn't work, and I agree it's broken. Maybe it's not fixable. I think it's broken mainly because the government is less concerned with cost -as a private firm would be - than it is with following a set of procedures designed to cover asses from bottom to top. Government contractors usually provide poor services because they're too restricted by illogical regulations, and competition is stifled once you're on a list of approved contractors. Again, you may be right, it may not be fixable from that perspective, but again, it's a government problem, not a problem of the free market.

I'm willing to agree their may be no efficient way to get our services from the government. I don't think we've fully and creatively explored the other options, however.

 

[dross]

Yes. That's why I think those laws should be done away with. If you take away the profit motive then you don't end up with the abuses we've seen as a result.

You make my (& others ) argument for me.

No, you just get abuses of another kind based on the self-interest of the parties involved. This is the failing of socialism - money isn't evil and neither is self-interest - the evil springs from trying to design systems that require man to put aside his self-interest (which is impossible) instead of designing systems that take it into account.

An individual (as an abstraction) will in general do what benefits him. That doesn't change whether the government is the employer, or a private business, you just get a different set of issues.

Life is a series of tradeoffs.

 

[finity]

No, you just get abuses of another kind based on the self-interest of the parties involved. This is the failing of socialism - money isn't evil and neither is self-interest - the evil springs from trying to design systems that require man to put aside his self-interest (which is impossible) instead of designing systems that take it into account.

An individual (as an abstraction) will in general do what benefits him. That doesn't change whether the government is the employer, or a private business, you just get a different set of issues.

Life is a series of tradeoffs.

Your not honestly trying to convince me that capitalism is not about maximizing some (more powerful) peoples positions at the expense of other (less powerful) people, are you? That this is somehow good for society? In a perfect world where everything is exactly on a level playing field I could agree.

Pure communism is bad but so is pure capitalism. We've had a limited capitalist economy for a long time & so far its seemed to work pretty well I think. We are the biggest economic power on the planet. The problems occur when you completely deregulate (or completely regulate) the economy.

Once you put the power of wealth in the mix that level playing field is nothing but a myth. Without some form of regulation, wealth holds all the cards. Unrestrained wealth & power becomes a tyranny not an equalizer. Sorry, it's a historical fact.

You are correct that money is not evil. It is the desire to get that money for the benefits bestowed by having more of it that is evil.

Rules & laws are imposed to limit the desire for people to do whatever benefits them at the expense of others.

 

[dross]

Your not honestly trying to convince me that capitalism is not about maximizing some (more powerful) peoples positions at the expense of other (less powerful) people, are you? That this is somehow good for society?

In a perfect world where everything is exactly on a level playing field I could agree. Once you put the power of wealth in the mix that level playing field is nothing but a myth. Without some form of regulation, wealth holds all the cards. Unrestrained wealth & power becomes a tyranny not an equalizer. Sorry, it's a historical fact.

You are correct that money is not evil. It is the desire to get that money for the benefits bestowed by having more of it that is evil.

Rules & laws are imposed to limit the desire for people to do whatever benefits them at the expense of others.

We've reached what I'm sure is a very basic difference in our philosophies. No, I don't agree that capitalism is about maximizing some powerful people's positions at the expense of the less powerful. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods. Yes, some will do better than others. Just as with any system. In a more socialist, or regulated system, if you will, the currency shifts to political capital.

The desire to get money is not evil. The desire to get more money is not evil. In a system where money is devalued, like socialism, the desire to get more is still there, but it's more political power that people try to get. Self-interest is and always will be king. That's what the socialists can't seem to understand.

I'm for regulation that prevents force from being initiated. I'm for no regulation when it comes to free exchange between adults. I understand you don't agree - it's the crux of our different political belief systems.

 

[finity]

We've reached what I'm sure is a very basic difference in our philosophies. No, I don't agree that capitalism is about maximizing some powerful people's positions at the expense of the less powerful. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods. Yes, some will do better than others. Just as with any system. In a more socialist, or regulated system, if you will, the currency shifts to political capital.

The desire to get money is not evil. The desire to get more money is not evil. In a system where money is devalued, like socialism, the desire to get more is still there, but it's more political power that people try to get. Self-interest is and always will be king. That's what the socialists can't seem to understand.

I'm for regulation that prevents force from being initiated. I'm for no regulation when it comes to free exchange between adults. I understand you don't agree - it's the crux of our different political belief systems.

I'm not for regulation of free exchanges of goods or ideas between consenting, reasonably knowlegable (as in full disclosure) equally powerful adults.

If someone makes more than me I'm OK with that, too. I make more than a lot of other people.

If you include in your "regulation that prevents force from being initiated" the force of coercion or manipulation then I think we are closer in our beliefs than you think.

P.S. I edited my post after you posted. I included a statement about regulated economies.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

If you think Police services must be government provided to avoid economic motiviation, then by the same token; healthcare, nutrition, recreation, etc. should be provided by the government because obviously we don't want such vital activities to be economically motivated...

Just because the government CURRENTLY throws a !@#$-ton of money to a few contractors doesn't mean that it's the only way contracting can work. Instead of writing the contractor a blank check, simply put them into a contract to deliver for a set number of dollars & hold them to it in court. It seems to work well enough for our roads, even under the currently corrupt atmosphere.

Please don't go all Russian on us just because a few companies hire lots of lobbyists & wine & dine some politicians. Oversight is key.

**Edited to remove bad quote & fixed to make sense w/out a quote. Contents are exact same meaning...god I'm a newb...**

 

[bft131]

I have a friend that is a Sgt. on the Chicago PD. He told me that if daley had his way he would lay them all off and hire private security for the entire city.

He also told me that a couple of weeks ago there was a rally of 2800 police officers 3 deep around Chicago city hall, the kicker was that the Intl. Olympic commitee just happened to be in town the same day as the rally. Didnt see that on the news did ya?????

He also told me that the Chicago PD had shirts made up with "Chicago, the murder capital of the world" on the front and on the back was a chalk outline of a body and the words "Chicago 2016" (The year Chicago is trying to get the Olympics!). He is trying to get me one of the shirts.....

 

[flagtag]

I like your friends! Sounds like they have "got it together"!

 

[dross]

Then, by the same token, all road-building, healthcare, nutrition, recreation, etc. should be provided by the government because obviously we don't want activities to be economically motivated...

Just because the government CURRENTLY throws a !@#$-ton of money to a few contractors doesn't mean that it's the only way contracting can work. Instead of writing the contractor a blank check, simply put them into a contract to deliver for a set number of dollars & hold them to it in court. It seems to work well enough for our roads, even under the currently corrupt atmosphere.

Please don't go all Russian on us just because a few companies hire lots of lobbyists & wine & dine some politicians. Oversight is key.

I think you're arguing with the wrong guy on this post. I think your beef is with finity. I pretty much agree with you, depending on what you mean by "oversight."

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I think you're arguing with the wrong guy on this post. I think your beef is with finity. I pretty much agree with you, depending on what you mean by "oversight."

LOL my bad Dross, you're right. I managed to quote the wrong post.

And what I mean by oversight is nearly perfect transparency with abundant checks & balances to ensure the rights of all citizens...aka, something nearly impossible.