What's the deal DP are you scared of privatization?
Submitted by dexterszyd on Thu, 10/01/2009 - 20:43
I am playing a devils advocate ok....so settle down.
I read a lot about the police state and big government controls and how cities are being bankrupt by exorbitant retirement benefits by state unions here on the Daily Paul. Let me just tantalize you a bit...
What is wrong with a private:
1. Police Force
2. Fire Department
3. Garbage pick up
4. Health Care insurer
5. etc...etc ...etc...you get the point.
I don't know what the Hardin thing is about but I have got to say I sense a little hypocrocy here in DP world.
I'm ok with it...call me out but what if your town decided to hire their own Police....Is that ok????
I'm just saying.....and remember before you crucify me....I am you brother not your enemy... Lets tread lightly.
Firstly, the police
Firstly, the police department falls under the "justice" category and that should never be privatized, neither should national security.
No hypocrisy here, just your failure to understand Dr. Paul....
Not a problem under common law.
I think the concept of a sort of 'enhanced' neighborhood watch could be a great thing. I live in a part of Los Angeles that tried to secede from the incorporated city a couple years ago. The primary reason was that our piece of L.A. supplies the lion's share of taxes and clearly gets the scavenger's share of services. Were it not for the machinations of our smarmy city council, we would have succeeded.
I have believed for ages that ALL laws should go to the voters to be passed. Since we are expected to abide by them. This city currently has a HUGE budget problem (they can not manage on a mere $3+bn) and yet last week they managed to pass a law that you can have no more than 1 rooster per household. This is what we pay 6 figures a year to 15 or 20 people for. Also, the habit of congress strapping together grossly dis-similar legislation (i.e.: agriculture/gun control) has irked me for as long as I can remember.
On Topic: I would relish TRUE privatization of most, if not all, public services. The parameters of each being very well defined. As would be the ramifications for ill executed services. But, natural law is paramount for any of this to work properly. Many here have mentioned the oath under which public servants operate. That is kind of funny to me because even my 15yr old daughter has questioned,"What is the punishment for a member of government who breaks their oath of office?" ... Hmmmm ... No one seems to have ever actually written that down I guess. We could find no recourse (other than don't re-elect them). Unless congress decides to impeach. But then you are back to the cronies.
Constitutionally, I think the 'Aliens' in the Hardin situation are MT aliens. Much like I view the bonehead Bratton we have here as police chief, or for that matter Hilary being a NY alien.
I read the DP daily and it is a very important part of my daughter's home schooling. She was taught to NEVER trust any 1 source of info and to ALWAYS read/consider the opposing side. I frequently grill her to insure she is not just echoing my POV. I am proud to say I believe her 1st time voting (Nov 2012) will doubtless be for RP or whomever her endorses (subject to her thoroughly checking the person out, of course)
~Liberty for ALL~
**This posting displayed on 100% recycled electrons**
**This posting displayed on 100% recycled electrons**
So you believe in the power of the majority?
You say above "I have believed for ages that ALL laws should go to the voters to be passed."
Interesting. Have you thought at any length about the problems that allowing mob rule would create? After all, in a true democracy if a majority votes for something that harms the minority there's nothing that the minority can do about it, right?
Also, I believe in liberty for all as well. Could you tell me how you resolve your desire for liberty for all with your desire to allow the mob to dictate to the minority how things will be?
I believe I should have a say in what restrictions I live under.
If the "Mob" consists solely of my local neighbors ... I suppose my choices would be to participate or disassociate. Again, none of this will work with the status quo. If I do not wish to adhere to a set of local laws with say a Mormon leaning set of values ... then Salt Lake City would be off of my radar as a homestead.(could have easily said Amish or pot smoking or whatever sense of values that are not shared by everyone)
In a constitutional republic, do not the representatives stand up for the desires of the basic majority of their constituents? Or is 1 decenter enough to poo poo any given legislation?
**This posting displayed on 100% recycled electrons**
**This posting displayed on 100% recycled electrons**
That’s the problem. You only have a say when the mob agrees
When you say you’d disassociate yourself if you didn’t agree with the rule of the mob I get the impression that you mean you’d sell your property and leave. Would I be correct? If I am, then the problem with your statement that you’d either participate or disassociate is not accurate. Leaving can be an act of disassociation, but disassociating does not require that you leave an area. Please consider this; do you or do you not own your property? If you do, why should it be necessary for you to sell it and leave if the government, I mean mob, passes some ordinance or law that you don’t agree with? As for purchasing property in areas with ordinances or laws in place with which you don’t agree, I understand your point of view but disagree. Unless those governing bodies own that property which you wish to purchase and write such rules into the sales contract, what gives them the right to demand and enforce rules upon you? It’s far different to purchase property in a closed development where the owner includes rules in the sales contract that you and the property owner are bound to than it is to purchase property and have a 3rd party simply dictate and demand that you follow their rules, subject to change, with no recourse but to sway the mob that made and approved of that/those rules or leave.
In a constitutional republic, the representatives are not required to stand up for the desires of the basic majority of their constituents. Even if they were, that’d be nothing more than window dressing for a rule by mob. The representatives are elected to do what they determine is best. And, despite when the dissenters number 100:1, representatives still vote in favor of certain legislation, so no, 1 dissenter certainly isn’t enough nor does the desires or the rights of that dissenter matter.
1. Government faces no competition, 2. Government employees have
For some reason, we're expected to know every law that exists in America & in our state so we don't break it. We're supposed to know this when we're 18. There's no litmus test for them, as in the 10 commandments or rhyme or reason. C.U.R.E.
job security. You have no choice but to go back to the courthouse after an unsatisfactory experience , though you don't have to go back to the same grocery store/ liquor store/ gas station/ diamond merchant, etc..
For some reason, we're expected to know every law that exists in America & in our state so we don't break it. We're supposed to know this when we're 18. There's no litmus test for them, as in the 10 commandments or rhyme or reason. C.U.R.E. Bugs are c
The question you have to ask is
It privatization just to make the state more efficient or is it privatization so someone can actually turn a profit?
Would the private sector do it if the state didn't subsidize or directly contract out work?
Last thing we need is a more efficient tax collector, killer, and rights tromper.
Social Contract Theory
such as Locke and Hobbes and Rousseau theorized, basically says that free people give up their freedoms to the gov't for the greater good. We give up our right to many things and let the gov't ensure these restrictions on our freedom aren't abused. For example, we give up the freedom to kill other people and enlist the gov't to enforce this. We give this to the gov't, not to private citizens. That's the historical and philosophical roots of why it is not ok to have private citizens enforcing what we have universally contracted the gov't to do. It defeats the purpose of gov't if private citizens can take the law into their own hands.
The problem isn't privitazation.
These are foreign mercenaries. And if you don't know what's wrong with that, well...I give up.
No..Stay in the context here. I,m not talking about Hardin
For Freedom!
For Freedom!
It's not "private" when it's
It's not "private" when it's being funded by a government. A "private" corporation being funded by government is by definition FASCIST.
People against this, aren't against private police. They're against fascist police.
I for one, would prefer free market competition in police services.
That's not what this is.
Tracy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Way for Trey Grayson searchers to find Rand Paul
http://www.treygraysonforsenate.com
Trey Grayson For US Senate 2010 in Kentucky.
~
A Way for Trey Grayson searchers to find Rand Paul
http://www.treygraysonforsenate.com
Trey Grayson For US Senate 2010 in Kentucky. See also http://www.jointreygrayson.com/ Spread these links around
It's All About Monopolies !
Government it self is a monopoly.
The banking system is a monopoly.
Government gives it's permission to form and create countless more monopolies. Some of which turn into criminal elements because they feel they have the protection of Government police power.
In a free society competition is essential !
In the old days families took their responsibility seriously and handled any problems themselves.
Yes, this led to feuds, but nothing compared to the millions of people that have suffered because they broke government rules. { Drug wars }
In my opinion all the above listed government supported services could be provided at the local level.
The Constitution says a well regulated militia is essential, however a militia would be volunteers that would have police duties, firemen duties, and yes even trash pick up duties.
Certain areas like crowded cities would be difficult because young un-employed people form gangs that essentially make their own rules take control of these areas,,,but I feel if strong family ties are kept in place and work, training, schooling, etc. { volunteer or paid } was available to every able bodied person, government at all levels could be much, much smaller. Even schooling could be done at the local level with volunteers,,,It Was At One Time ! !
beesting
How can people support corrupt coercion?
Our military has been used for corrupt purposes throughout its HISTORY. I thought the point of military was to protect our borders, not expand our empire. Even in World War II the US attacked German ships before Germany declared war on the US.
Do you think a private militia (not corporations, which are chartered by government) would be as aggressive as the United States military? No, it would be more cost effective to remain neutral and only focus on defense. The people paying for support would not support raising prices to engage in unnecessary violence.
And as others have mentioned here already, our public police has no obligation to protect its citizens. WTF? That is the purpose of the police. And having a monopolistic police force breeds corruption and laziness. There's a reason for the dozens upon dozens of horror stories involving the police. They're bounded by the constitution, huh? How come whenever they commit crimes and break the law they always get barely any punishment? How come when they shoot and kill an innocent civilian they don't get manslaughter, but time off?
I'm not arguing for corporate owned police forces. But private organizations tend to regulate themselves internally a lot better when the government can't seem to.
Everyone should check out The Myth of National Defense by Hans Hermann-Hoppe and realize the failure of public security forces.
http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf
Support Your Local Sheriff
He or she is elected by the people; the Chief of Police isn't, and the President of American Police Force sure as hell ain't.
I think it's time for all of us to read "County Sheriff: America's Last Hope" by Sheriff Richard Mack.
http://www.sheriffmack.com/index.php/books-by-richard-mack
Some interesting observations
Public police department budgets nationwide have been growing at about 3 percent a year, but demand for police service is growing much faster. In response, police departments are turning to several alternative service delivery techniques to cut costs and increase service levels.
* Intergovernmental Contracting. In Los Angeles County, the Sheriff’s Department has entered into 42 service contracts with local jurisdictions to supply policing services.
* Volunteers. Police departments increasingly are turning to volunteers to help expand their community-policing programs. In 1994, 10 percent of police departments used volunteers, and all indications are that the number has been growing steadily since then. Volunteers fit readily into community-policing programs, so as more and more departments turn to community-policing, they also turn to volunteers.
* Outsourcing. Some police departments are starting to look at outsourcing administrative, support, and security services that might be provided privately, freeing up public police to concentrate on the central policing function of combating violent crime.
Check it out here:
http://www.privatization.org/database/policyissues/police_lo...
For Freedom!
For Freedom!
In my state MO, volunteer police officers were the backbone
of poorer counties and small towns. Then MO state started uping the POST training requirement hours and cost till a person who wanted to volunteer as a reserve police officer, would have to cough up lots of cash and about a years time when doing POST training after their regular jobs.
so the states are partly the blame.
My question.
From whence cometh the increasing demand?
(My guess: From local *government* which is not representing the people, but rather fleecing them. And that is why we need to understand local government and take it over/force it back into a reasonable proportion by taking over responsibility personally. Just a guess.)
Ok I have got to poke fun at myself.
This is hilarious!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6CkltzGAxY
For Freedom!
For Freedom!
LMAO! "I felt I didn't know enough
about them..like being asked to sleep with someone I didn't know very well and I was nervous and consequently dissappointed."
That's too funny... but it really sums up how I feel about private mercenary forces!
*****
"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
Fire
We already have private fire departments and ambulance services.
That's VERY common. In fact most of them are volunteer
We already have a private police force.
No police officer in this country, as mandated, ever swears or affirms to support the Constitution. Nor do they have the mandatory and appropriate bond. They all are conducting themselves purely in their private capacity and have no immunity for their actions. This especially includes impersonating a peace officer which they do daily as usurpers under the thrust of their own government code.
With the amount of videos of
With the amount of videos of police/border patrol/TSA brutality & stupidity posted in this website, I thought people would be somewhat more acceptable toward private security. I haven't thought or researched in depth on this matter, but I know that there are prisons ran by private enterprises that look after their bottom line. I haven't heard any inmates that are starve to death to reduce costs or forced to work as slaves to build things to increase bottom line.
If the local citizens can vote to create local law that every single private police officer has to abide, why not entertain this idea? Let's not start calling these people mercenaries. That's like calling tea party protesters "teabaggers." Don't like the idea? Debate it, but let's not calling them names.
Why not ask the private police officer to swear that he holds the Constitution or some sort of code of conduct? A lot of professions have code of conduct, doctor, accountant, etc.
In the age of YouTube, hidden cam, hidden tape recorder, twitter, etc, you can record misconduct of private police officer. Remember that C4L guy that record his conversation with TSA at the airport? Oh wait, I almost forgot, was it private companies that ran screening at the airport prior 9/11?
Missing the point
Private control of Law Enforcement gives a private company control over your personal liberty. It doesn't matter what oath they take. Who will enforce the oath.
Government has a few legitimate purposes and one of those is Law enforcement. The constitution intelligently directs most law enforcement toward the state level and then local. An individual can move from one county to the next or one state to the next if he doesn't like the laws. How do move away from world government.
I hate rude behavior in a man. Won't tolerate it.
I hate rude behavior in a man. Won't tolerate it.
A private company wouldn't
A private company wouldn't have control over your liberties. You still do. You would be the employer, so if they are not doing what you expect, you fire them. Simple.
As far as the gov't being responsible for law enforcement, there's nothing saying they can't hire a private law enforcement firm if that's beneficial for the community. Again, if not performing to standards set by the local gov't, the firm is dismissed.
Blessings )o(
Blessings )o(
It's not that simple
If a private merc firm is hired to serve as a police force, who is going to stop them from violating people's rights?
No, they won't just "be dismissed." These things are always tangled in kickbacks and under the table quid pro quo's. Even if they aren't, it takes a miracle to get a publicly employed officer sanctioned or fired, much less arrested himself for abuse of power these days, and private mercs don't have the regs they have to follow that public officers do.
There is no need for private police forces if we actually had bonded peace officers. Such departments aren't nearly as expensive to run, and given the alternatives I'd bet dimes to dollars that the people would GLADLY pay for an accountable public agency over a private one.
We are no where NEAR the needed level of libertarian understanding where we can abolish public agencies like the police department or the courts and start hiring out private contractors.
You're so right. People still must be forced to obey or else.
>yawn< I'm really tired of hearing people who claim to understand what it means to be a libertarian insist that the only way to move forward to a greater state of liberty for everyone is to continue to subjugate everyone by force.
And in case anyone including yourself misunderstands, my subject line is 100% sarcasm. You don't achieve liberty for all by advocating the continued subjugation of all.
Thank you none, good to see that some
people in this thread actually understand libertarian ideas.
There is only one answer to this kind of question...
about this kind of situation - support local.
Assert Your Authority
Assert Your Authority
It is not private. They
It is not private. They don't live by rules the rest of us live buy. I am sure if I put a police emblem on my truck things would not go well for me. And I am sure I am not allowed to have the weapons and the amount they have. If the daily Paulers could compete with these guys in a true "free" market I wouldn't have a problem. In fact we probably aren't even allowed to buy the jail even if we had the money. Maybe we should start the Daily Paul Police.
Privitization of government is an oxymoron
Even libertarians believe there are legitimate reasons for self government. Police, Fire and EMS are very much within the scope of a local government.
This is not the place for anarchy, brother. The defence of our nation is also a legitimate reason for federal government. The protection and defence of our people is to me the founding principle of our Republic. Who believes that we should privatize our military? Blackwater is full of thugs and killers with no respect for any law or constitution. Let's pay mercenaries to spread freedom around the world by killing anyone that disagrees. (obviously not a good idea)
What do you do when a company does not live up to its contractual agreements? Fire Them. If that company is your local police and they violate your constitutional rights, maybe even kill you; did you give them permission by hiring them and if not how do you hold them accountable?
I definitely agree with the this statement from a previous post:
"it's NOT privatization of the real sort, but a form of corporate/gov't partnership, which is actually what the definition of fascism is."
I hate rude behavior in a man. Won't tolerate it.
I hate rude behavior in a man. Won't tolerate it.
What is wrong?
These are foreign mercenaries running prisons in the US. And training foreigners for military police operations. This is Blackwater operating our prisons. I don't think so.
Might be worth your while to research this.
Mercenaries don't work to serve and protect ...
They work to follow the orders of their leaders and don't give a rat's butt about the rule of law in any country they may find themselves working in. Here in America I have a feeling they won't be required to take an oath of office to serve and protect the Constitution, which is always a requirement for all police. I'm assuming they won't have to--I don't know for sure, but it seems logical.
The police have no obligation to serve or protect you
But don't take my word for it though. Simply start researching the numerous court cases where the state and federal governments have decided that there is no obligation on their part to protect you.
here's one
New York Times: Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.
Competition
In our town we do have private garbage pick up and private recycling pick up. These businesses compete for peoples business and it keeps the rates honest. Police and fire are considered public service and everyone needs to benefit from them, not just those that pay for it. Can you imagine multiple police forces competing for your business? That would be very dangerous to the guys who are not paying in, and also open doors up for extensive abuse of power by those that pay "extra". We already experience this quite a bit with corrupt cops on the take but it would become automatic if those professions were privatized. Now take the garbage man, if he does a crappy job you have trash everywhere and people will get in his face. If a cop does a crappy job and your neighbor gets set up, are you going to get in his face? I doubt it because you'll be the next one with a planted ounce of weed in your trunk. Exactly the problem we see in Hardin, those mercs could give a you know what about the liberties of the people, they'll just do whatever they are told, even if it's completely wrong and hurts people. Are you going to step up to them? I would hope the whole town steps up but then you've got a local war started. Plus, elected officials are supposed to keep control of the police, not 14 time convicted felons looking out for their bottom line. We know elections don't really work anymore but in theory we are supposed to elect people in who represent us and they could be removed if they perform poorly. No private mercs running my town without a serious showdown I would have to say.
The problem is, that they
The problem is, that they already are!!!
The police, fire, garbage, etc ARE private companies. Thats right, private, for profit, corporations.
no wonder the police LOVE to give tickets as much as possible.
https://smallbusiness.dnb.com/ePlatform/servlet/IballValidat...
look it up yourself!
try your police department....if the police are private, and "for profit" than HOW can they serve and protect in the interest of the Citizen, rather than the company??? they CANT!!
For starters, I wish people who use the phrase
"Devil's Advocate" would actually read the book first. You might be less inclined to use it at least in this manner.
It is an excellent book by Taylor Caldwell, and it is VERY pertinent to our time. I highly recommend it to everyone here on DP.
In a nut shell, the "Devil's Advocate" is not someone who makes a contrary point or "argues both sides." A Devil's Advocate is just that, an advocate for the Devil. He (or she) does not "present the other side" but rather methodically implements an evil plan, just as if the Devil himself were executing it. In order to be effective, this Advocate cannot ever let on that he really believes in the opposite, or even isn't sure. The Advocate must wholeheartedly believe the evil that he is perpetrating. He has forsaken his own soul for the betterment of his fellow man. He does so, because he sees no other way to "wake the people up" for them to resist tyranny and evil on their own. So he actively works to institute evil, in the case of the book, a tyrannical President, so that he drives the people to revolt. Of course, for this to work, even history must never find out the truth of his real intentions, for if they did, it would ruin and diminish all he had worked for. He must forever be hated and vilified, and in the end, must become the evil he detests in order to save his country.
We may very well have already experienced, or maybe are currently experiencing just such a person. But I doubt it. I think if we ever get one as President, there will be no doubting his evil intentions. We will never be able to say he was a good man. He will be the epitome of evil, through and through. And we will never know if he is doing it because he is evil, or because he wants us to fight back.
More to the point of privatization though, while one day it may be a good thing, and might work very well, I doubt you will find a single free-market economist who would advocate, if they had any sense, that we begin privatizing such basic government functions this soon.
We need a long time of limited government before we are ready for that.
good post
loved that story!
the wording of the 1st sentence kinda worked me up a lil...
far as I know, the term "Devil's Advocate" was used in the mid 1700's, WAY before that book was written. The OP used the term correctly.
Maybe: "Your use of the term 'Devil's Advocate' reminds me of a book by that name and is VERY pertinent to our time."
I liked your post, don't get me wrong... I get worked up the same way when people say "mute" when they mean "moot".
cheers!
Thanks, I wasn't aware of the origins before that.
I have something new to look up now.
It is a popular title for the Promoter of the Faith.
Devil's Advocate comes from the title Advocatus Diaboli which is a popular title for the Promotor Fidei (Promoter of the Faith). The office was established in 1587 by Pope Sixtus V. It is a person in the Roman Catholic Church who is appointed to find any evidence or flaws in the evidence that can be used to argue against the canonization of an individual.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01168b.htm
I love these posts that challenge us
and keep us on our toes. You started a good thread, thanks dexterszyd
Thank You. Its how we learn....
For Freedom!
For Freedom!
Hey, don't we have enough
ex military or current military to form our own private security company? We could hire them out for crowd control then they turn on the other guys and support the citizens...
how about 'Thugs for Hire'... or 'Rent A Revolutionary'
Slogan: "Need to start a revolution? We've got the experience, Call us today"
Consider the UN Agenda 21.
This is incremental intimidation, but well installed thruought the nation. I've felt a mental mindset change in local officers . . . our local police are having pay cuts and loosing pensions, as they watch guys drive by in mercedes.
It really doesn't take a lot of para military types to reak havoc, or even coordinate . . . well let's see . . . how bout people protesting a four lane highway heading from far inland, just newly constucted, and ends in no where. The road ends in a marsh area. A huge sea port could be bulilt there. It'll need to be protected, and it's owners (Chinese) administratively offered protection by Blackwater.
Hey, just rambling on, but rambling on like this world economic sytem based on "intimidation and prisons" for the fortunate ones, and death to others. Some great planning, eh.
“Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
http://www.foodincmovie.com/
http://www.dirtthemovie.org/
http://endoftheline.com
well
Fortune Favors the Bold
the obvious issue with private police forces is that there's no guarantee they will all be enforcing the same laws. They would be inclined to enforce the law of whoever hired them. And they would wind up "competing" with other private police forces over whose laws get enforced where.
Fortune Favors the Bold
I agree, That is why they must be bound by...
The Constitution.
BTW, "Fortune Favors the Bold" I love it! I think I will post it at the office for the sales team tomorrow.
For Freedom!
For Freedom!
If you want to disassemble a structure but not destroy it
You don't just go around grabbing random bricks. You do it sytematically so you don't have any collapses or damage. It's the same thing here, yeah private police sounds great, but so many layers above them need to go before we can even imagine the damage such pulling would inflict.
Sensible approach
For Freedom!
For Freedom!
Deregulation and
Deregulation and privatization is a way to bypass the system and more often than not it ends up costing the community more than a co-op or community run services.
Why do think the fire dept. isn't private any more? Corruption and cost to the community that's why. Some things should be run the benefit of the community not for the benefit of profit.
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."
Privatization is fine.
as long as government money isn't used.. That's not the case in this instance.
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/