So what's wrong with a private police force?
Submitted by BugMan on Wed, 09/30/2009 - 14:30
Or private military, for that matter? Doesn't a private police force promote competition, and therefore efficiency and cost reduction? Isn't this the libertarian mantra... privatize, privatize, privatize?
»




















Maeve makes a good point regarding "private police force"
The process of hiring cops is in-effectual (at determining who's best -- owing to "fairness" hiring) and it is un-enlightened (regarding psychological screening).
However, at least there is the structure of a process.
In the free-market -- there are no gov't records (no monopoly); so, you will never know who you are hiring -or- to "insure" it you'd have to pay a lot of money to go through all the individual referrals and non-gov't record background checks.
Also, there is no "rule" or "licensure" process in the free-market so there's no way to stop someone from just hanging a hat on their door calling themselves "sheriff."
There are no "gov't" (monopoly) courts in a free-market. No matter who tells you there are. One bit of "force" in a free-market and you do not have a free-market regarding that gov't.
Now in a Minarchism you can have a bit of force and a bit of tax -- but free-market is necessarily a complete anarchy (no force - no authority) or it is not one.
If you disagree with that and think a smattering of free-market here or there is truly a free-market then enjoy corporatism because nothing "regulates" a garage sale (no taxes no authority) -- do we then have a free-market? Of course not, we have a highly regulated market.
All the concern aside -- I'd rather live in the non-security free-market future than the present day corporatist
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
What laws are they enforcing?
Police are charged with enforcing laws. So what laws does a private police force enforce? The ones the people who paid them want them to enforce? What happens when they break the law? Who enforces the law on them?
same problems, different organization
_________________
Want Ron Paul? Register Republican Now
If the people of Montana
If the people of Montana were directly paying the private police force that's absolutely fine.
However, since the uncountable federal government is the one paying their salaries, it makes it actually very dangerous
State of Montana Constitution
* Does not allow a private police force!
*Private contractors are not subject to the same FOIA and oversight laws!
( you know , like Blackwater in Iraq..not the same laws and rules as the military..thats for sure ! )
* This force has international roots...who are they accountable to?
****
"I think we are living in a world of lies: lies that don't even know they are lies, because they are the children and grandchildren of lies." ~ Chris Floyd
"I think we are living in a world of lies: lies that don't even know they are lies, because they are the children and grandchildren of lies." ~ Chris Floyd
Haha - the problem is who is paying them
If I hire a private security firm to provide police services, then I have recourse if they don't do their job. If federal politicians hire local contractors to provide local police services, then you have tyranny. Because money comes with strings attached and people generally try to make their bosses happy. A boss is understood to be the person who pays another person's salary.
Remember this thread? http://www.dailypaul.com/node/105632
Well, for one
Our tax dollars are being used for it.
Personally
I don't see much difference between hiring a group of cops all at once, and hiring them one at a time. Either way, you're tax dollars are going to pay for the security. At least when hiring in a group, if the force is corrupt, you fire the lot of them and hire another. To me, that just makes it easier than picking among them all to find the bad apples.
Blessings )o(
Blessings )o(