The reason why the private sector is more effective is because of competition. This is great when companies are competing in production and service. Not so great to have competing force. That is why governments are preferable to anarchism.
@StateExempt You can swear off a military all you want, cover your ears and eyes to the world around you, live in a fantasy world where you believe everyman is a rational peaceful being that wants harmony on earth. The won't stop a dictator from committing genocide or Iran from nuking millions of people.
That's interesting. I guess it would come down to who would be more efficient, gov. cops or private, and who would be less susceptible to corruption. What if some billianaire sleezeball like Rupert Murdoch bought a huge private police force and they went around beating up all honest people who weren't dogmatic republicans. What would stop that from happening. I'd have to hear more about how this would work.
All I see here is "give those with the most wealth personal armies". How is this an improvement over the current system which is funded by everyone, and (hardly) works to protect people? Instead of just having a small army of dicks with guns being assholes to those who might have broken the law, you know have a small, private corporate army equipped with guns capable of enforcing whatever law they (or who they're funded by) feel like.
Well know seeing as government is in the pocket of some rich people you are actually paying for their army and for their wars and have no choice in the matter (taxes are forced upon you). It is true that under ancap system rich could have personal armies but you would not fund them unless you wanted to - they would bear all costs themselves and would have to deal with competition should they choose to go rogue.
@zbigniewzapora But how would this private police force work. What citizens would they serve and protect and who wouldn't they. Would they only protect the people who pay them? What if you had some people in an area who hired one police force, another group who hired another, and so on and so on. Woud these police forces cooperate and would there be huge rivalries. What if two private police forces show up at the scene of a crime? Would they be in each others way?
"What citizens would they serve and protect?" They would serve and protect whoever their employer tells them to. I'm sure you have met private security forces at malls or in schools. Do they protect owners? Yes, but they are here so clients can feel safe too. "Woud police forces cooperate and would there be huge rivalries" Why do you care? You want low price and great service "Would they be in each others way?" Why would they? Conflict is expensive Private firms are there to make money
@CaptainImpedance If you are going to call someone an IDIOT you better be able to back it up. What are the particualrs about a private police force that you think wouldn't work? What makes you think the government police force would be more efficient and less corrupt? Any coward can go on youtube and insult someone anonymously. I see youtube as a place to debate ideas and not end them with one sentence insults.
Yeah, let's bring on the fucking private corporate armies. Whoever has money will get a little battalion of thugs! Just like feudal city states! Fuck off.
@willmattwood Hey lets give one group of people unlimted power and impunity. YEH... oh wait its called government. Did you know that government can murder people legally? The USA government has killed 650,000 iraqi people.... and gotten away with it.
in th English ruled countries ,Councils have their own privet police security companies undermining the actual real police
Police need to be separate from goverment where their concerns are protecting us from the thieves and rapists and thugs and NOT inforcing BYLAWS and ACTS or being revenue collectors
what is going to happen in the future is these stupid security guards will be the real police and the actual real police with become roit cops in full armor.
The existence of money that allows manipulation, allows the manipulation of the masses by the 1% to exist. We need a sound dollar, one that cannot be inflated based upon the Federal Reserve's "speculation" as to how it might help the economy. History and common sense teaches us that printing more money (DEVALUING A CURRENCY) can not fix any problem, and if it does, it will create more problems in the long-term.
Okay but how will we know the private police lobby won't try to use their cronies in government to pass laws making more things illegal to create more crime which can give the private police forces more money by letting them arrest more people and creating a higher demand for police men?
I think private police is a bad idea. All it will lead to is a greater disparity of wealth. The only people who would be able to afford protection would then have essentially a military force behind them. Poor people would be marginalized and exploited to a greater extent than in the 1800s.
This is a great idea, you think a private police force whose income is based on how well they treat their costumers would raid people's home because they were smoking a plant?
Yeah, with poor people their police are called vigilantes. I can't afford private police; I'm hardly able to afford private anything. Corporations don't represent me but since I'm one of the people, govt. must. If they don't, then we'll change the govt. States made a mess when they hired private corp. to run their prisons. They made a whole new industry for themselves: Imagine them, find them, convict them, lock them up: ka-ching. His anarchic-capitalism is Utopia; I'll also rethink Rothbard.
@BrotherWoody1 Of course if there wasn't a state monopoly on security like the police to inflate the cost of policing not only due to the drug war but also due to the fact they have very little to not charge as much as possible. With a public police you can't opt out if you're not satisfied with their service, so what do they care if they squander people's tax money?
There's no reason that poor people couldn't afford private police force if it was on a free market, there's obviously a demand for police protection.
Prisons are not in a free market, the prison racket is a tell tale sign corporatism. Few businesses lobby the state to cartelize, raise artificial barriers to entry etc etc.
@crazypants88 I agree except for the part about poor people. Poor people can't afford much of anything, otherwise they wouldn't be poor people. Here, we can't even get folks to pay for their garbage collection, let alone, pay for their police. It's a nice idea for someday but it's purely in the realm of an utopian vision at this point & thus, impracticable. Perhaps we CAN finally get a truly "free" market instead of the monetized-so called "free" market by which the FED enslaves us. OCCUPY!
@nett103 *couch* Black water *cough* was hired by government to serve their interest, not the interest of general public. How do you not see governments involvement in this? not to mention their ability to shield Blackwater from prosecution for any wrong doing.
@Antitheist98 How do you see this being any different? We already see companies having too much power, authority, influence and immunity but you think this will be different. What will happen is that there will now be additional companies fighting for government contracts, which will then increase lobbying...I mean bribery. Who do you think will hire these contracted police? Answer: Government.
@nett103 Companies have no power over you. Government does. Companies lobby to use this power for their interest. Reducing or eliminating government involvement will only improve the final product. This does not have to be done through a government contract.
And even if it is to be done with government funding, publicly funded but privately managed company is better than one that is both funded and managed by government. This way there is at least some competition.
Privatized prisons. Privatized police force. Privatized postal delivery. Has the world gone mad? Boycott all foreign goods and let's look into outsourcing our polticians, we too could save a few bucks.
Competing police? Isn't that called gangsterism? This is where libertarians start driving me mad and where they give capitalism and free markets a bad name. Please understand that there is no such thing as a marketplace of force: the strongest will always overwhelm the weakest (or the slightly weaker) and we will have a monopoly in the end anyway. Best start with a monopoly under objectively defined laws.
@crazypants88 Where you paying attention to what I said? A monopoly always arises when FORCE is involved. Compare the alcohol trade under prohibition to the alcohol trade in countries where it is legal to sell it. Where does a monopoly on alcohol trade arise? Eeyup, where it is illegal to sell it. Why? Because the person with the biggest guns wins. This is an example of libertarians not understanding the difference between voluntarily trade and force.
@crazypants88 It will be the same with private police forces. Putting aside the fact that what we are talking about here are essentially mercenaries, in reality the police forces will put more effort fighting each other than fighting criminals and the Al Capone of the police trade will win in the end. That kind of monopoly does not arise on a free market where there is no force involved. As I said before this is where libertarians drive me mad.
Ummmm, wasn't the whole idea to get corporate money out of government??? How does it make sense to allow corporate police to enforce laws that will protect the public? Has Wall Street , big Banks and Big Pharma not taught us the dangers of corporate run government institutions? Or does the FDA not reek of Monsanto's vile influence enough for this guy?
The supposedly "civilian" police have become the standing army we were warned against.
Everything in the police attitude, from the uniforms to the hardware to the Sovereign Immunity, separates them from the people they are supposedly working for.
Private police are LITERALLY working for the people. It's not just a slogan.
Please tell me that this is a joke! Is Prof Stringham suggesting that corporations run our police? That is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. The corporations would be free to plunder and murder and enslave the bottom 99% with even more impunity than they have now. How could this be called "Freedom Fest" when someone advocates corporate tyranny?
Of course they would which is why it is such a good thing. They have an incentive to actually do their jobs. There is no current incentive for them to be effective. Just look at the difference between private bounty hunters and public investigators in successful pursuit and capture of fugitives. Also look at how they deal with those fugitives during and after the capture. Private wins hands down, plus it costs taxpayers nothing. Great deal if you ask me!
@SrgGoofy don't worry, i understood what you said. i meant that i am for a private security personnel or company be allowed to obtain a warrant from a judge.
So the police protect the private individuals, communities, etc. who can afford it and leave those who can't in the lurch? Doesn't that sort of happen already? Surely there's more to his pet theory than these 5 minutes would suggest.
Here's my problem with this. Right now, even public police forces issue summonses with revenue raising motives. If you have private police forces, who are only there to turn a profit, the amount of summonses for stupid things are likely to rise dramatically, along with car towing. The private forces would probably lobby to lower speed limits, increase parking restrictions, and to make laws that would increase their revenue so they can make more money. I see the net freedom going down.
But with all those stupid summonses, people would get pissed and stop paying for that company's service. No one would choose to continue to pay for a police force to essentially harass them. Business that treat their customers with respect would naturally rise to the top, since the customers want to be respected, and the customers are the only influence on the businesses in the absence of state intrusion.
@graaaaaagh You make fair points. However, what is to stop a wealthy person from hiring a lot of police officers to abuse their power and violate other people's rights, if his police force is much stronger than the combination of everyone else's in the area? Moreover, what would stop him from buying out everyone else's police forces and allow them to violate other people's rights? What forces would step in to protect those whose rights are being violated, the National Guard?
There's a couple things that would seem to prevent such a situation:
1. The people living around that wealthy person would have no qualms developing alternatives (as in, new protection companies). The states that exist today have not only physical force, but also (in fact, primarily) the general submission (not necessarily outright approval) of the population. The private police paid by the rich dude would not have such compliance. (cont.)
2. In a more voluntary society, the distribution of wealth wouldn't be totally even, but situations like that of 1% owning nearly half the capital would be unlikely. The state is force multiplication for the rich. Without all the statutes and regulations and by-laws in place that let them maintain larger-than-normally-sustainable control, and (again) without the projected legitimacy of the people, wealthy businesses and individuals would not have special breaks or privileges.
@Maserati7200 That's why they would only be able to enforce the laws, not make them, just like now. The reason there are so many summonses for revenue raising is because the police are government officials. Don't have so many senseless laws and the private police won't be able to issue those sorts of summons. And just because they lobby for ridiculous laws doesn't mean they'll get them. Furthermore, as he points out, people would be able to police themselves. Think 2nd Amendment.
One of the things to overcome when discussing the role of police is to get people to understand the distinction between the judiciary and the police.
I think if you stopped the average person and asked them who was responsible for enforcing the laws they would say the police. This is incorrect. In the UK where I live it's the Crown Prosecution Service (archaic I know) and the police must state their case to the CPS. The police are to investigate and deliver the evidence.
@Aurini I agree 100%. Polycentric Law is the way to go to have a society with fair rules. I am drafting a Constitution of Polycentric Law and Panarchic Governments, which are private Protection Agencies. The "Central Government" is only allowed to print documents such as birth certificates, driving licenses, passports.
It's too bad that Schiff conceded to the concept of "tricke-down economics" or "Reaganomics". Like WTF is that! The terminology is loaded with collectivism and planning. Last time I checked, there is no national economic pie or planned distribution. Market incomes are earned individually. This is the kind of shit that makes Repubs the worst enemies of capitalism. Also, the protesters have zero idea of the distinction between correlation and causation.
the Brotherhoods will make the governments pay out the nose to have these private companies protecting them, and each government will go bankrupt into the hands of private individuals or groups. Everyone needs to read the book "Gods of Eden" We are all being played from the word history.
@KaelinSaint Courts, politicians. I don't try to have a cynical view point on who protects me. Public or private. But at least with a public police there is a chance for accountability.
But look at the brother's in blue mentality. They essentially police themselves. It is a buddy, buddy relationship between prosecutors and police officers. Just look at sentences police officers get when prosecuted for a crime compared to a normal person. It is ridiculous. I think a private police force is more accountable. Again, the consumer votes with their dollars. Compare private to public in any other area as far as accountability and customer satisfaction goes. Private wins.
@Levioshock It's really quite the opposite. Have you ever tried to settle a dispute with any business, (one not protected from competition by government)? Threatening to take your money elsewhere it's really a powerful tool, which gets their attention every time. Have you ever tried settling a dispute with a post office? or DMV, or Police , or the court system? They already have a hand in your pocket. Unless you can raise political hell you really have no power. No single vote ever broke any tie
And I cannot repeat this enough, the police are not there to protect you. It is not part of their job description and has been ruled as such by the Supreme Court. You protect you, maybe your family and friends and if you hire them, a private security firm, but not the police.
Love it! But this Libertarian is still not convinced that the poor would be able to afford private security. Since life and limb are on the line, private security, no matter how much competition there is, is going to be much more expensive than, say, a loaf of bread, where competition brings the price down to an affordable level for everyone.
@bradwatson7324 But those poor ppl would have less of a need for private security because they wouldn't have a bunch of psychotic War veterans(police) coming to their neighborhoods to enforce bull shit laws. Plus there would be less ppl enforcing gun laws that make it more difficult and expensive to protect yourself.
How about a gun? Cheap and easy security right there. This argument also implies that most people in the absence of a police force or a particular law for that matter would engage in "criminal" behavior. Legalize heroin and everyone will use. Make possession, carry and concealment of firearms cheap and easy and blood will run in the streets. These are things you likely laugh at as a Libertarian, see how your point is similar and laugh at it too.
The sheriff was a duly elected representative of the people, and accountable to his constituents. He hired and fired his deputies according to his reputation and ability to get re-elected in the community. The problem with a conventional "police force" is that the department is no longer accountable to the people directly since it operates under the permanent tenure of a union, and it's behavior is decided by those same members. Since the conventional use of a police, Sheriff's take a backseat.
If a private company wants extra security it can hire its own private police.
Private police will not safe guard areas they are not paid to protect. Its so fucking stupid i cant believe it even crosses the mind as an idea.
It will leave most of the country with no police force, gangs will grow enormously, they eventually spill over into your "Safe" protected areas and then sit back and watch as heavily armed gangs come to you.
The police force is already prioritizing corporations over people.
There's organized drug gangs and there's your lost youth gangs. In a country where guns are a right and legal for protection, this makes both dangerous to the weak.
Even if the police are shelved, you want to convince me every single citizen will carry one?
More than 50% don't own a gun. Many are too scared to even hold one. Who will protect them when if this idea becomes a reality? Who protects the widow and the orphans? or even the homeless?
@selfsenter Those drug gangs exist because of the illegality and those youth gangs exist because of the broken gov't schools. Lots of citizens don't carry guns because the gov't(cops) has indoctrinated ppl into thinking tools are evil. And because there are a million hoops the cops make you jump through to acquire one. How many widows exist because of gov't wars or gov't created violence. How many ppl are homeless because of gov't economic policy? How many homeless ppl are war veterans?
I don't agree with the US's gov't economic,foreign or even domestic policy but in the context of our current world and its harsh realities, simply removing the police will not improve anything.
Not to derail the discussion but comparing the US to my country where the number of gun crimes in 40 years has been less than one hundred makes it hard for me to agree on self protection.
@selfsenter Simply employing police, even if they only enforce "good" laws, is still inefficient economically. When you factor in benefits and salary, police make more than the average person in the private sector. You have to take money from the producers, who would either use that money to create more jobs for the same amount of money or put it in the bank which then would be loaned out, so you wind up impoverishing ppl in order to create a police force
You are aware that the Supreme Court ruled that it is not the job of the police to protect you? So it logically follows their job is not to protect any area or group of individuals either. My point being, you protect yourself. Get rid of the police and make possession, carry and concealment of a firearm for private defense easier and you won't have a violent crime problem. How did they do things in the relatively lawless "Wild West"? You have no supporting evidence for your claim.
Supreme court is an American establishment of law, not the rest of the world.
And the ruling by the supreme court in that instance was on Castle Rock vs. Gonzalez, where a restraining order was ignored by the husband which led to the wife attempting to sue the force for allowing it to happen.
A restraining order does not mean the police will be watching him 24/7 so she truly has no right to sue.
So no, it does not logically follow anything you mentioned after that.
Furthermore, the police act as deterrents of crime before anything else.
Their mere presence will prevent potential acts of criminality.
In their absence, any thug with a gun can examine the neighborhood and single out who appears weak before making his move with no threat of being stopped during his crime or caught after his crime.
Its a recipe for total chaos within society.
You, an urban individual thinks he can survive a week in the wild west?
It still follows logically. At best police are a deterrent to crime, not so much because they will catch the criminal in the act, this is highly unlikely but because during investigation they may possibly catch the criminal. Then it becomes a question of how likely they are to catch the criminal, how much evidence will they be able to bring against them and what the extent of the punishment will be. However, most people aren't law abiding due to laws or potential punishment.
Please just don't dismiss private police before actually researching the case for it. There are many videos on the Mises channel about it. I say this because the topic really can't be judged at first glance, there is a lot more to the argument than in this video.
I'm all for merchants and big companies having 'private police' in the form of security or rent-a-cops (to an extent) to supplement the failures of public police in keeping their stores or businesses safe, but that's not exactly "private police", at least as I would consider it. Those are private SECURITY firms or services.
As much as you can bitch about government and "force", the fact is, at least with them being under gov't, the public can hold them accountable. Without a legal structure (pretty much the definition of public and government) to hold cops accountable, private police can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want, right? If there's no one to hold them accountable and charge them if they get out of line.
But if you admit there WILL or must be a legal structure in place, then they're 'public.'
So can you explain to me how are you or so called "public" keeping government accountable??? Cause as far as I can tell you are doing terrible fucking job at it.
By the way thanks to technology and improved standard of living, Large police force is unnecessary.
Libertarian or not, one must admit that this guy is little more than a utopian and possibly an anarchist. I mean, COME ON. Private police CANNOT nor will ever fully replace public ones! It just can't be done. Sure, you can cite one example where a major city had private police back in the day, but eventually they KNEW they needed public ones at some point.
This guy needs to get out of his ideological bubble and into the real world.
Government today looks at itself as separate from the people and in control of them. The government should fear the people as the people control the government. It has all been reversed.
@shaynetrimbell The whole point of a free market is that there is FREE COMPETITION, nobody can "control" it. If Walmart is only selling chinese goods and lots of people want to buy goods from america or anywhere but china then you are free to open competition doing just that. The fact is that people want cheap stuff, so they have more money for other things so chinese goods are what they buy.
You know what's terrifying about private police? No state action element generally means that you have no 4th Amd. / Constitutional protections vis-a-vis their conduct. This shouldn't be about economics, it's about preserving individual liberty. Unless private police fall under the 14th / 4th amds, I'm against private police.
@SunSunSuperFun 4th amendment is an agreement between people, you could write anything in the constitution into your contract with private police. You can also try and convince everyone else to do the same by organising threats of boycott etc. There is nothing special about government other then coercing innocent people, which we can all agree isn't a good thing.
@Hashishin13 "4th amendment is an agreement between people" No it's not. It's an expression that certain powers have not been delegated by the people / states to the gov't.
As for writing things into contract, great, but that has nothing to do w/ people who are not in privity / parties to the contract. State action is a requirement for const. protections. Either apply const. limitations to private actors, or avoid private action.
@ all supporters of voluntary exchange. I think we will see plenty of people opposing this with fraudulent rationalizations, frustrations, anger and fallacies. They have no sound defense to the only idea they have been raised to know about how to organize society. Help them out in developing the tool of (gunna say it) reason where they can critically think about ideas and contribute to a discussion besides "I don't like it!"
I honestly think private police, would be a bad idea. It would provide a method for people with money to have far more control then they have now. Though I know it is hypothetical and won't happen.
@kolearian You mean the people with power who write laws, buy politicians and generally own the government will have MORE power when they have to pay for their own thugs and don't have the illusion of governmental benevolence to cover up their scummy laws and actions? I doubt it.
@Hashishin13 Yes, Because the police, that the corporations will pay for, will not have the constraints that our police have. The poor could make their own police force. Which one, do you think, will have more power. The police of the rich or the poor? The rich would have all the newest technology and weapons. While the poor will have to settle with surplus weapons. The "abusing the power" aspect could work both ways, rich or poor police.
The current system would work if corporations couldn't put so much of their own money in it. If the government wasn't currently ruled by the corporations then we wouldn't have to worry. Privatizing the police isn't the solution because without a strong set of universal rules then it could easily get out of hand.
@kolearian You mean out of hand like the war in Iraq? Or the war in afganhistan? Private police won't have the legitimacy to go bomb around the world killing hundreds of thousands, people would see it for what it is when the governmental legitimacy has been stripped away, mass murder.
You can't prevent money from going to politicians it just won't work, there are a million and one back channels like jobs being promised, swiss ban accounts etc. Also the corporate charter is made by government.
From a theoretical standpoint it sounds like it could be a good idea. Utilizing competition would make the police force more accountable and thus more effective and efficient. I just don't know how it would be implemented and funded. If you funded it through taxes like we do now its wouldn't be as effective because bureaucrats would control the competition. If the system is transparent and the community has direct control, it could be a good idea.
@thexjib there is one very good reason it doesn't happen and wont happen because unlike government that can externalize its cost via taxation private companies would have to directly bare the cost of any conflict and therefore will seek to avoid it, private police forces also have an incentive to avoid conflict due to the damage such action has on there reputations, in other words fighting between police forces makes them look bad which makes them lose current and future customers.
I'd rather have a security force that actually does its job properly AND that I voluntarily pay for and subscribe to, then be robbed (er, "Taxed") by the government.
And also, look up David Friedman's essay on private law enforcement in Iceland. Private police works better than you might think.
I'd like to hear what some people think about volunteer fire fighters. Why can't large cities have volunteer departments payed for by donations and fund raisers? All funding would be private, but property and equipment would still be owned by the city. We would still elect fire commissioners, who would be autonomous from the city government.
@SrgGoofy As far as I've been able to determine the first fire brigade was started in the Roman Empire and was for profit. Later, when Rome burned, not only was Nero not fiddling but rather he used his own money to create a fire brigade to put out the fire. For nearly 2000 fire departments were private institutions. In America, for example, fire departments were paid by insurance companies (so no, you didn't negotiate prices with the fire department as your home burned to the ground).
I'm a libertarian, but I don't think it would be smart to get rid of government police. I'm all for private police, but we should still have public police be there for everyone. I can't imagine it would be good to have no public officers whatsoever.
@TheTubbtubb Several months ago, I would have completely agreed with you. I started studying anarcho-capitalism heavily and it makes more and more sense when you dive into it. If you have any interest in learning about how an An-cap society could work, check out freedomainradio(d0t)com or the "Stefbot" channel on youtube. This video below, whether you agree or disagree with, will certainly change your perspective on what government does.
@ih8ronpaulh8ers Read "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," one of the best libertarian books ever written, for the other side of the story: the minarchist critique of Rothbardian anarchy.
@kylethebomber I'll check out. Thanks. I'm always interested in arguments against anarchy but I can't say that I will ever drop my support of anarchism. Once you accept the non-aggression principle and realize that government violates that principle, its hard to turn your back on it. I have no doubt that anarchism has flaws, simply because people are flawed. Actually, I think one of the best arguments against statism is that people are flawed. So trusting them to a monopoly of force sounds scary
@ih8ronpaulh8ers That's the best part about Nozik's book! He shows how an anarchic society could (maybe even *has to*) back into a minarchist society without violating the non-aggression principle!
That's the most important part of the argument, I think. That freedom may not solve all our problems, but that keeping the state can only make them worse.
Individuals taking responsibility for their own personal defense is another prevailing trend that works well for this purpose. 40+ out of 50 states recognize firearms carry as an individual right that cannot be denied to the average citizen, which allows us to do a much better job of maintaining our own personal safety against threats of harm by criminals. This is perhaps the most direct form of privatization of public safety and it's very low cost and efficient.
Why not if it is held to the same or higher standards that our current police are? Warrants are granted by judges upon being provided sufficient evidence to "warrant" the searching of private property. (this of course ignores the unconstitutional patriot act self warranting)
@Anonymous77513 I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that Warranted searches were bad. What I meant by my comment was that I don't believe that a private security firm should be given the same powers that a government police office enjoys. In the case were a warrant must be served, a Investigator/Agent of the Justice Dept who is not involved in the case, should be present to ensure that the search/seizure is done lawfully.
I think the government (specifically the County Court) should have Investigators, but no "beat cops." The National Guard can be used in a SWAT/SRT roll, and under the supervision of an Investigator may issue warrants, similar to the FBIs agents and HRT. Private Security firms may be contracted with for Patrolling and Response.
It didn't seem to clear as to how "low income" families would be able to afford "private police". Would there just be different forms of the private police? For example" A "Better" police force that is employed by the wealthy (million dollar contract) as opposed to "sub-par" force that is employed by the poor (thousand dollar contract).
Yes, lets all start competing police forces, just like they have in Somalia. Libertarians are retarded. The proper role of government is to hold a monopoly on retaliatory force and use it to ban force from society. Laissez-faire Capitalism is the proper social system and you can learn more about it at the Capitalism site (take the tour).
@cmbbroker We use private security firms instead of the police for security in a suburb of Cape Town where I live. Also citzens police. tinyurl(.)com/6kow76g Government failed, the private organizations do a better job. Statistics of robberies on the site. Pooled usage of CCTV cameras for the suburb. The idea is only strange to you, because you aren't used to it.
I agree. Privatizing everything isn't necessarily the best thing to do, but we need to see everything they're doing. They also need to be punished extremely stringently for offenses/power abuse to be made an example of.
This is one of the few small government positions of libertarianism that I disagree with. A private police force could be bought to enforce arbitrary laws by those with the money to do so. Corruption exists within government run police forces of course, but corruption will always exist in any organization. Transparency is what is needed.
@liOVERLOADil It's up to the people to repeal the arbitrary laws you speak of so they cannot be enforced. A private company is far more transparent than a government run bureaucracy.
Your argument is actually invalid. It is one of the most common fallacies when discussing libertarian concepts. People assume that when someone says we should privatize X that means X is no longer accountable to the people / state. As with any other privatization there is typically a contract involved spelling out exactly what the private entity is responsible for accomplishing and if they don't they lose the contract. They can not enforce arbitrary laws unless the laws exist
@liOVERLOADil I partly agree. I personally think that the more effective route to freer and more transparency in society would be through detaching the state from the service of arbitration and law. When the incestuous tie between the fist and the rationalization is broken, the lion's share injustices will rightly fall against state crime. This scenario will make necessary private police, transparent arbitration arrangements and transparent law founded on natural rights.
I agree
In the English ruled countries you see the city councils comming up with their sidewalk(footpath) security force
NYWAORCANZ 2 months ago
The reason why the private sector is more effective is because of competition. This is great when companies are competing in production and service. Not so great to have competing force. That is why governments are preferable to anarchism.
poopster102 3 months ago
@poopster102 - Are you as likely to fire off a $1,500,000 cruise missile at someone if the cost must come out of your own pocket?
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt You can swear off a military all you want, cover your ears and eyes to the world around you, live in a fantasy world where you believe everyman is a rational peaceful being that wants harmony on earth. The won't stop a dictator from committing genocide or Iran from nuking millions of people.
poopster102 2 months ago
@poopster102 - If I believed everyone was totally angelic, I would be an authoritarian like you since I would trust those in power.
I do agree that government dictators commit massive genocides and that the government of Iran wants to nuke other countries.
StateExempt 2 months ago
That's interesting. I guess it would come down to who would be more efficient, gov. cops or private, and who would be less susceptible to corruption. What if some billianaire sleezeball like Rupert Murdoch bought a huge private police force and they went around beating up all honest people who weren't dogmatic republicans. What would stop that from happening. I'd have to hear more about how this would work.
Jshect 3 months ago in playlist More videos from ReasonTV
All I see here is "give those with the most wealth personal armies". How is this an improvement over the current system which is funded by everyone, and (hardly) works to protect people? Instead of just having a small army of dicks with guns being assholes to those who might have broken the law, you know have a small, private corporate army equipped with guns capable of enforcing whatever law they (or who they're funded by) feel like.
Ferridox 4 months ago
Comment removed
zbigniewzapora 4 months ago
@Ferridox
Well know seeing as government is in the pocket of some rich people you are actually paying for their army and for their wars and have no choice in the matter (taxes are forced upon you). It is true that under ancap system rich could have personal armies but you would not fund them unless you wanted to - they would bear all costs themselves and would have to deal with competition should they choose to go rogue.
zbigniewzapora 4 months ago
@zbigniewzapora But how would this private police force work. What citizens would they serve and protect and who wouldn't they. Would they only protect the people who pay them? What if you had some people in an area who hired one police force, another group who hired another, and so on and so on. Woud these police forces cooperate and would there be huge rivalries. What if two private police forces show up at the scene of a crime? Would they be in each others way?
Jshect 3 months ago in playlist More videos from ReasonTV
@Jshect
"What citizens would they serve and protect?" They would serve and protect whoever their employer tells them to. I'm sure you have met private security forces at malls or in schools. Do they protect owners? Yes, but they are here so clients can feel safe too. "Woud police forces cooperate and would there be huge rivalries" Why do you care? You want low price and great service "Would they be in each others way?" Why would they? Conflict is expensive Private firms are there to make money
zbigniewzapora 3 months ago
This Guy is a dangerous IDIOT!
CaptainImpedance 4 months ago
@CaptainImpedance I agree, like Glenn Beck, he gives libertarians a bad name.
poopster102 4 months ago
@CaptainImpedance If you are going to call someone an IDIOT you better be able to back it up. What are the particualrs about a private police force that you think wouldn't work? What makes you think the government police force would be more efficient and less corrupt? Any coward can go on youtube and insult someone anonymously. I see youtube as a place to debate ideas and not end them with one sentence insults.
Jshect 3 months ago in playlist More videos from ReasonTV
We should have what people voluntarily choose to have for themselves. No one should be forced to "pay" for the preferences of others.
rockstarofredondo 4 months ago
Yeah, let's bring on the fucking private corporate armies. Whoever has money will get a little battalion of thugs! Just like feudal city states! Fuck off.
willmattwood 4 months ago
@willmattwood Hey lets give one group of people unlimted power and impunity. YEH... oh wait its called government. Did you know that government can murder people legally? The USA government has killed 650,000 iraqi people.... and gotten away with it.
yelloyo 4 months ago
STRINGHAM FTW
fudgebarjohn 4 months ago 2
in th English ruled countries ,Councils have their own privet police security companies undermining the actual real police
Police need to be separate from goverment where their concerns are protecting us from the thieves and rapists and thugs and NOT inforcing BYLAWS and ACTS or being revenue collectors
what is going to happen in the future is these stupid security guards will be the real police and the actual real police with become roit cops in full armor.
NYWAORCANZ 4 months ago
The existence of money that allows manipulation, allows the manipulation of the masses by the 1% to exist. We need a sound dollar, one that cannot be inflated based upon the Federal Reserve's "speculation" as to how it might help the economy. History and common sense teaches us that printing more money (DEVALUING A CURRENCY) can not fix any problem, and if it does, it will create more problems in the long-term.
Ryanventura 4 months ago
Okay but how will we know the private police lobby won't try to use their cronies in government to pass laws making more things illegal to create more crime which can give the private police forces more money by letting them arrest more people and creating a higher demand for police men?
Shonenut213 4 months ago
@Shonenut213
There's no government cronies for them to rely on in a stateless society.
graaaaaagh 4 months ago
I think private police is a bad idea. All it will lead to is a greater disparity of wealth. The only people who would be able to afford protection would then have essentially a military force behind them. Poor people would be marginalized and exploited to a greater extent than in the 1800s.
imasciencegeek 4 months ago
This is a great idea, you think a private police force whose income is based on how well they treat their costumers would raid people's home because they were smoking a plant?
crazypants88 4 months ago
Yeah, with poor people their police are called vigilantes. I can't afford private police; I'm hardly able to afford private anything. Corporations don't represent me but since I'm one of the people, govt. must. If they don't, then we'll change the govt. States made a mess when they hired private corp. to run their prisons. They made a whole new industry for themselves: Imagine them, find them, convict them, lock them up: ka-ching. His anarchic-capitalism is Utopia; I'll also rethink Rothbard.
BrotherWoody1 4 months ago
@BrotherWoody1 Of course if there wasn't a state monopoly on security like the police to inflate the cost of policing not only due to the drug war but also due to the fact they have very little to not charge as much as possible. With a public police you can't opt out if you're not satisfied with their service, so what do they care if they squander people's tax money?
contd.
crazypants88 4 months ago
@BrotherWoody1 contd.
There's no reason that poor people couldn't afford private police force if it was on a free market, there's obviously a demand for police protection.
Prisons are not in a free market, the prison racket is a tell tale sign corporatism. Few businesses lobby the state to cartelize, raise artificial barriers to entry etc etc.
crazypants88 4 months ago
@crazypants88 I agree except for the part about poor people. Poor people can't afford much of anything, otherwise they wouldn't be poor people. Here, we can't even get folks to pay for their garbage collection, let alone, pay for their police. It's a nice idea for someday but it's purely in the realm of an utopian vision at this point & thus, impracticable. Perhaps we CAN finally get a truly "free" market instead of the monetized-so called "free" market by which the FED enslaves us. OCCUPY!
BrotherWoody1 4 months ago
I kiss Murray Rothbard books all the time.
catobear1704 4 months ago
Private contractors? Oh yeah, thats always worked. *couch* Black water *cough*
nett103 4 months ago in playlist More videos from ReasonTV
@nett103 *couch* Black water *cough* was hired by government to serve their interest, not the interest of general public. How do you not see governments involvement in this? not to mention their ability to shield Blackwater from prosecution for any wrong doing.
Antitheist98 4 months ago
@Antitheist98 How do you see this being any different? We already see companies having too much power, authority, influence and immunity but you think this will be different. What will happen is that there will now be additional companies fighting for government contracts, which will then increase lobbying...I mean bribery. Who do you think will hire these contracted police? Answer: Government.
Thats my skeptical take.
nett103 4 months ago
@nett103 Companies have no power over you. Government does. Companies lobby to use this power for their interest. Reducing or eliminating government involvement will only improve the final product. This does not have to be done through a government contract.
And even if it is to be done with government funding, publicly funded but privately managed company is better than one that is both funded and managed by government. This way there is at least some competition.
Antitheist98 4 months ago 2
Can someone say Gestapo?
ggswims 4 months ago
Privatized prisons. Privatized police force. Privatized postal delivery. Has the world gone mad? Boycott all foreign goods and let's look into outsourcing our polticians, we too could save a few bucks.
PissedOffChurchLady 4 months ago
@PissedOffChurchLady Outsource the politicians -- Yes, that is one great idea !
bulbheadmyass 4 months ago
Policing should be profitable and only protect the rich
lethalidiotz 4 months ago
Competing police? Isn't that called gangsterism? This is where libertarians start driving me mad and where they give capitalism and free markets a bad name. Please understand that there is no such thing as a marketplace of force: the strongest will always overwhelm the weakest (or the slightly weaker) and we will have a monopoly in the end anyway. Best start with a monopoly under objectively defined laws.
SpellboundSolution 4 months ago
@SpellboundSolution How exactly would a monopoly arise in a free market?
crazypants88 4 months ago
@crazypants88 Where you paying attention to what I said? A monopoly always arises when FORCE is involved. Compare the alcohol trade under prohibition to the alcohol trade in countries where it is legal to sell it. Where does a monopoly on alcohol trade arise? Eeyup, where it is illegal to sell it. Why? Because the person with the biggest guns wins. This is an example of libertarians not understanding the difference between voluntarily trade and force.
SpellboundSolution 4 months ago
@crazypants88 It will be the same with private police forces. Putting aside the fact that what we are talking about here are essentially mercenaries, in reality the police forces will put more effort fighting each other than fighting criminals and the Al Capone of the police trade will win in the end. That kind of monopoly does not arise on a free market where there is no force involved. As I said before this is where libertarians drive me mad.
SpellboundSolution 4 months ago
Ummmm, wasn't the whole idea to get corporate money out of government??? How does it make sense to allow corporate police to enforce laws that will protect the public? Has Wall Street , big Banks and Big Pharma not taught us the dangers of corporate run government institutions? Or does the FDA not reek of Monsanto's vile influence enough for this guy?
desertrosetx 4 months ago
The supposedly "civilian" police have become the standing army we were warned against.
Everything in the police attitude, from the uniforms to the hardware to the Sovereign Immunity, separates them from the people they are supposedly working for.
Private police are LITERALLY working for the people. It's not just a slogan.
CurtHowland 4 months ago
Please tell me that this is a joke! Is Prof Stringham suggesting that corporations run our police? That is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. The corporations would be free to plunder and murder and enslave the bottom 99% with even more impunity than they have now. How could this be called "Freedom Fest" when someone advocates corporate tyranny?
MortimerTheClueless 4 months ago
@MortimerTheClueless They think that if you get rid of the government nobody will fill the power vacuum.
temujin1234 4 months ago
This would be awesome for the elite.
sweYoda2 4 months ago
Wait wait wait.... PRIVATE police that enforce STATE laws?
sweYoda2 4 months ago
I wonder if the private police would be biased towards the people who pay them . . . naaahh
wasserbrunner 4 months ago
@wasserbrunner
Of course they would which is why it is such a good thing. They have an incentive to actually do their jobs. There is no current incentive for them to be effective. Just look at the difference between private bounty hunters and public investigators in successful pursuit and capture of fugitives. Also look at how they deal with those fugitives during and after the capture. Private wins hands down, plus it costs taxpayers nothing. Great deal if you ask me!
KaelinSaint 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SrgGoofy don't worry, i understood what you said. i meant that i am for a private security personnel or company be allowed to obtain a warrant from a judge.
Anonymous77513 4 months ago
Comment removed
Anonymous77513 4 months ago
So the police protect the private individuals, communities, etc. who can afford it and leave those who can't in the lurch? Doesn't that sort of happen already? Surely there's more to his pet theory than these 5 minutes would suggest.
xxcrysad3000xx 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheConspiracyRealist 4 months ago
Here's my problem with this. Right now, even public police forces issue summonses with revenue raising motives. If you have private police forces, who are only there to turn a profit, the amount of summonses for stupid things are likely to rise dramatically, along with car towing. The private forces would probably lobby to lower speed limits, increase parking restrictions, and to make laws that would increase their revenue so they can make more money. I see the net freedom going down.
Maserati7200 4 months ago
@Maserati7200
But with all those stupid summonses, people would get pissed and stop paying for that company's service. No one would choose to continue to pay for a police force to essentially harass them. Business that treat their customers with respect would naturally rise to the top, since the customers want to be respected, and the customers are the only influence on the businesses in the absence of state intrusion.
graaaaaagh 4 months ago
@graaaaaagh
Businesses that*
graaaaaagh 4 months ago
@graaaaaagh You make fair points. However, what is to stop a wealthy person from hiring a lot of police officers to abuse their power and violate other people's rights, if his police force is much stronger than the combination of everyone else's in the area? Moreover, what would stop him from buying out everyone else's police forces and allow them to violate other people's rights? What forces would step in to protect those whose rights are being violated, the National Guard?
Maserati7200 4 months ago
@Maserati7200
There's a couple things that would seem to prevent such a situation:
1. The people living around that wealthy person would have no qualms developing alternatives (as in, new protection companies). The states that exist today have not only physical force, but also (in fact, primarily) the general submission (not necessarily outright approval) of the population. The private police paid by the rich dude would not have such compliance. (cont.)
graaaaaagh 4 months ago
@Maserati7200
2. In a more voluntary society, the distribution of wealth wouldn't be totally even, but situations like that of 1% owning nearly half the capital would be unlikely. The state is force multiplication for the rich. Without all the statutes and regulations and by-laws in place that let them maintain larger-than-normally-sustainable control, and (again) without the projected legitimacy of the people, wealthy businesses and individuals would not have special breaks or privileges.
graaaaaagh 4 months ago
@Maserati7200 That's why they would only be able to enforce the laws, not make them, just like now. The reason there are so many summonses for revenue raising is because the police are government officials. Don't have so many senseless laws and the private police won't be able to issue those sorts of summons. And just because they lobby for ridiculous laws doesn't mean they'll get them. Furthermore, as he points out, people would be able to police themselves. Think 2nd Amendment.
DaddyRTO 4 months ago
Freedom won't create a perfect world. Just the best possible world.
carcabe 4 months ago 57
One of the things to overcome when discussing the role of police is to get people to understand the distinction between the judiciary and the police.
I think if you stopped the average person and asked them who was responsible for enforcing the laws they would say the police. This is incorrect. In the UK where I live it's the Crown Prosecution Service (archaic I know) and the police must state their case to the CPS. The police are to investigate and deliver the evidence.
mangoswiss 4 months ago
Polycentric Law FTW.
Aurini 4 months ago 4
@Aurini I agree 100%. Polycentric Law is the way to go to have a society with fair rules. I am drafting a Constitution of Polycentric Law and Panarchic Governments, which are private Protection Agencies. The "Central Government" is only allowed to print documents such as birth certificates, driving licenses, passports.
DanMorin007 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I would love to see FPSRussia provide private security for the Paul Tea Parties and the Austrians theorists at the Occupy Events!
"And yes Russia, please set up the 40mm Bofors Autocannon over there. That's right, it's for security everyone remember that."
Brownyman 4 months ago
Comment removed
Brownyman 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
google INFRAGARD
watch?v=E0rVgqDsHPU
watch?v=u2OSHJdoTL0
watch?v=nHE3WFBya38
anthonyc31 4 months ago
Comment removed
anthonyc31 4 months ago
It's too bad that Schiff conceded to the concept of "tricke-down economics" or "Reaganomics". Like WTF is that! The terminology is loaded with collectivism and planning. Last time I checked, there is no national economic pie or planned distribution. Market incomes are earned individually. This is the kind of shit that makes Repubs the worst enemies of capitalism. Also, the protesters have zero idea of the distinction between correlation and causation.
truevoice08 4 months ago
the Brotherhoods will make the governments pay out the nose to have these private companies protecting them, and each government will go bankrupt into the hands of private individuals or groups. Everyone needs to read the book "Gods of Eden" We are all being played from the word history.
tpulling83 4 months ago
Who would keep watch over the private police?
Levioshock 4 months ago
@Levioshock All you fear is already here...
obtree 4 months ago
@Levioshock Who watches over the government police?
Vitaminous 4 months ago
@Vitaminous That's not an answer
Levioshock 4 months ago
@Levioshock Your question isn't a question, then.
Vitaminous 4 months ago
@Levioshock
The consumer, as in every private transaction. And I reply, who keeps watch over public police?
KaelinSaint 4 months ago
@KaelinSaint Courts, politicians. I don't try to have a cynical view point on who protects me. Public or private. But at least with a public police there is a chance for accountability.
Levioshock 4 months ago
@Levioshock
But look at the brother's in blue mentality. They essentially police themselves. It is a buddy, buddy relationship between prosecutors and police officers. Just look at sentences police officers get when prosecuted for a crime compared to a normal person. It is ridiculous. I think a private police force is more accountable. Again, the consumer votes with their dollars. Compare private to public in any other area as far as accountability and customer satisfaction goes. Private wins.
KaelinSaint 4 months ago
@Levioshock It's really quite the opposite. Have you ever tried to settle a dispute with any business, (one not protected from competition by government)? Threatening to take your money elsewhere it's really a powerful tool, which gets their attention every time. Have you ever tried settling a dispute with a post office? or DMV, or Police , or the court system? They already have a hand in your pocket. Unless you can raise political hell you really have no power. No single vote ever broke any tie
Antitheist98 4 months ago 2
@KaelinSaint
And I cannot repeat this enough, the police are not there to protect you. It is not part of their job description and has been ruled as such by the Supreme Court. You protect you, maybe your family and friends and if you hire them, a private security firm, but not the police.
KaelinSaint 4 months ago
Los Vegas lets casino guards have some powers of policing.
falleruen 4 months ago
Please watch 'How Could A Voluntary Society Function?', here on Youtube.
Nielsio 4 months ago
Love it! But this Libertarian is still not convinced that the poor would be able to afford private security. Since life and limb are on the line, private security, no matter how much competition there is, is going to be much more expensive than, say, a loaf of bread, where competition brings the price down to an affordable level for everyone.
bradwatson7324 4 months ago
@bradwatson7324 But those poor ppl would have less of a need for private security because they wouldn't have a bunch of psychotic War veterans(police) coming to their neighborhoods to enforce bull shit laws. Plus there would be less ppl enforcing gun laws that make it more difficult and expensive to protect yourself.
ShatterNWO 4 months ago
@bradwatson7324
How about a gun? Cheap and easy security right there. This argument also implies that most people in the absence of a police force or a particular law for that matter would engage in "criminal" behavior. Legalize heroin and everyone will use. Make possession, carry and concealment of firearms cheap and easy and blood will run in the streets. These are things you likely laugh at as a Libertarian, see how your point is similar and laugh at it too.
KaelinSaint 4 months ago
The sheriff was a duly elected representative of the people, and accountable to his constituents. He hired and fired his deputies according to his reputation and ability to get re-elected in the community. The problem with a conventional "police force" is that the department is no longer accountable to the people directly since it operates under the permanent tenure of a union, and it's behavior is decided by those same members. Since the conventional use of a police, Sheriff's take a backseat.
cowboy1165 4 months ago
If a private company wants extra security it can hire its own private police.
Private police will not safe guard areas they are not paid to protect. Its so fucking stupid i cant believe it even crosses the mind as an idea.
It will leave most of the country with no police force, gangs will grow enormously, they eventually spill over into your "Safe" protected areas and then sit back and watch as heavily armed gangs come to you.
The police force is already prioritizing corporations over people.
selfsenter 4 months ago
@selfsenter Gangs largely exist because of laws the police enforce. More laws and more police just means more gangs. War on drugs is a great example.
ShatterNWO 4 months ago 2
@ShatterNWO
There's organized drug gangs and there's your lost youth gangs. In a country where guns are a right and legal for protection, this makes both dangerous to the weak.
Even if the police are shelved, you want to convince me every single citizen will carry one?
More than 50% don't own a gun. Many are too scared to even hold one. Who will protect them when if this idea becomes a reality? Who protects the widow and the orphans? or even the homeless?
selfsenter 4 months ago
@selfsenter Those drug gangs exist because of the illegality and those youth gangs exist because of the broken gov't schools. Lots of citizens don't carry guns because the gov't(cops) has indoctrinated ppl into thinking tools are evil. And because there are a million hoops the cops make you jump through to acquire one. How many widows exist because of gov't wars or gov't created violence. How many ppl are homeless because of gov't economic policy? How many homeless ppl are war veterans?
ShatterNWO 4 months ago
@ShatterNWO
See now we are changing fixed variables.
I don't agree with the US's gov't economic,foreign or even domestic policy but in the context of our current world and its harsh realities, simply removing the police will not improve anything.
Not to derail the discussion but comparing the US to my country where the number of gun crimes in 40 years has been less than one hundred makes it hard for me to agree on self protection.
selfsenter 4 months ago
@selfsenter Simply employing police, even if they only enforce "good" laws, is still inefficient economically. When you factor in benefits and salary, police make more than the average person in the private sector. You have to take money from the producers, who would either use that money to create more jobs for the same amount of money or put it in the bank which then would be loaned out, so you wind up impoverishing ppl in order to create a police force
ShatterNWO 4 months ago
@selfsenter
You are aware that the Supreme Court ruled that it is not the job of the police to protect you? So it logically follows their job is not to protect any area or group of individuals either. My point being, you protect yourself. Get rid of the police and make possession, carry and concealment of a firearm for private defense easier and you won't have a violent crime problem. How did they do things in the relatively lawless "Wild West"? You have no supporting evidence for your claim.
KaelinSaint 4 months ago
@KaelinSaint
Supreme court is an American establishment of law, not the rest of the world.
And the ruling by the supreme court in that instance was on Castle Rock vs. Gonzalez, where a restraining order was ignored by the husband which led to the wife attempting to sue the force for allowing it to happen.
A restraining order does not mean the police will be watching him 24/7 so she truly has no right to sue.
So no, it does not logically follow anything you mentioned after that.
selfsenter 4 months ago
@selfsenter
Furthermore, the police act as deterrents of crime before anything else.
Their mere presence will prevent potential acts of criminality.
In their absence, any thug with a gun can examine the neighborhood and single out who appears weak before making his move with no threat of being stopped during his crime or caught after his crime.
Its a recipe for total chaos within society.
You, an urban individual thinks he can survive a week in the wild west?
I have history to support my claim
selfsenter 4 months ago
@selfsenter
It still follows logically. At best police are a deterrent to crime, not so much because they will catch the criminal in the act, this is highly unlikely but because during investigation they may possibly catch the criminal. Then it becomes a question of how likely they are to catch the criminal, how much evidence will they be able to bring against them and what the extent of the punishment will be. However, most people aren't law abiding due to laws or potential punishment.
KaelinSaint 4 months ago
Please just don't dismiss private police before actually researching the case for it. There are many videos on the Mises channel about it. I say this because the topic really can't be judged at first glance, there is a lot more to the argument than in this video.
natepepin09 4 months ago
I always laugh when I hear "government serving their customers".
furyofbongos 4 months ago
This crosses the line for me.
Cornampoo 4 months ago
I'm all for merchants and big companies having 'private police' in the form of security or rent-a-cops (to an extent) to supplement the failures of public police in keeping their stores or businesses safe, but that's not exactly "private police", at least as I would consider it. Those are private SECURITY firms or services.
whoo689 4 months ago
It's really a matter of definition. Cops are cops, in the end. Ed Stringham is just playing semantics.
whoo689 4 months ago
As much as you can bitch about government and "force", the fact is, at least with them being under gov't, the public can hold them accountable. Without a legal structure (pretty much the definition of public and government) to hold cops accountable, private police can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want, right? If there's no one to hold them accountable and charge them if they get out of line.
But if you admit there WILL or must be a legal structure in place, then they're 'public.'
whoo689 4 months ago
@whoo689
So can you explain to me how are you or so called "public" keeping government accountable??? Cause as far as I can tell you are doing terrible fucking job at it.
By the way thanks to technology and improved standard of living, Large police force is unnecessary.
saper321 4 months ago
Libertarian or not, one must admit that this guy is little more than a utopian and possibly an anarchist. I mean, COME ON. Private police CANNOT nor will ever fully replace public ones! It just can't be done. Sure, you can cite one example where a major city had private police back in the day, but eventually they KNEW they needed public ones at some point.
This guy needs to get out of his ideological bubble and into the real world.
whoo689 4 months ago
what drugs is he on? It looks awesome.
eleseur 4 months ago
Government today looks at itself as separate from the people and in control of them. The government should fear the people as the people control the government. It has all been reversed.
62636263c 4 months ago
We should all just carry guns. Problem solved. No police needed
pf91rodman 4 months ago
Any market based solution is meant to benefit those that control the market.
shaynetrimbell 4 months ago
@shaynetrimbell The whole point of a free market is that there is FREE COMPETITION, nobody can "control" it. If Walmart is only selling chinese goods and lots of people want to buy goods from america or anywhere but china then you are free to open competition doing just that. The fact is that people want cheap stuff, so they have more money for other things so chinese goods are what they buy.
Hashishin13 4 months ago
You know what's terrifying about private police? No state action element generally means that you have no 4th Amd. / Constitutional protections vis-a-vis their conduct. This shouldn't be about economics, it's about preserving individual liberty. Unless private police fall under the 14th / 4th amds, I'm against private police.
SunSunSuperFun 4 months ago
@SunSunSuperFun 4th amendment is an agreement between people, you could write anything in the constitution into your contract with private police. You can also try and convince everyone else to do the same by organising threats of boycott etc. There is nothing special about government other then coercing innocent people, which we can all agree isn't a good thing.
Hashishin13 4 months ago
@Hashishin13 "4th amendment is an agreement between people" No it's not. It's an expression that certain powers have not been delegated by the people / states to the gov't.
As for writing things into contract, great, but that has nothing to do w/ people who are not in privity / parties to the contract. State action is a requirement for const. protections. Either apply const. limitations to private actors, or avoid private action.
SunSunSuperFun 4 months ago
@ all supporters of voluntary exchange. I think we will see plenty of people opposing this with fraudulent rationalizations, frustrations, anger and fallacies. They have no sound defense to the only idea they have been raised to know about how to organize society. Help them out in developing the tool of (gunna say it) reason where they can critically think about ideas and contribute to a discussion besides "I don't like it!"
humanhiveanomaly 4 months ago
The mafia used to provide that same kind of protection; it's called racketeering which is now run by our federal, state, and local governments!
MsWanderer1 4 months ago
I honestly think private police, would be a bad idea. It would provide a method for people with money to have far more control then they have now. Though I know it is hypothetical and won't happen.
kolearian 4 months ago
@kolearian You mean the people with power who write laws, buy politicians and generally own the government will have MORE power when they have to pay for their own thugs and don't have the illusion of governmental benevolence to cover up their scummy laws and actions? I doubt it.
Hashishin13 4 months ago
@Hashishin13 Yes, Because the police, that the corporations will pay for, will not have the constraints that our police have. The poor could make their own police force. Which one, do you think, will have more power. The police of the rich or the poor? The rich would have all the newest technology and weapons. While the poor will have to settle with surplus weapons. The "abusing the power" aspect could work both ways, rich or poor police.
kolearian 4 months ago
@Hashishin13
The current system would work if corporations couldn't put so much of their own money in it. If the government wasn't currently ruled by the corporations then we wouldn't have to worry. Privatizing the police isn't the solution because without a strong set of universal rules then it could easily get out of hand.
kolearian 4 months ago
@kolearian You mean out of hand like the war in Iraq? Or the war in afganhistan? Private police won't have the legitimacy to go bomb around the world killing hundreds of thousands, people would see it for what it is when the governmental legitimacy has been stripped away, mass murder.
You can't prevent money from going to politicians it just won't work, there are a million and one back channels like jobs being promised, swiss ban accounts etc. Also the corporate charter is made by government.
Hashishin13 4 months ago
Private police existed for thousands of years before government police.
PissedFechtmeister 4 months ago 3
anarcho-capitalism sounds like a good idea until you think about it.
thexjib 4 months ago
@thexjib and then it sounds like a great idea
adhocrat1 4 months ago
@thexjib Cool story, bro. Anything else to add to the discussion?
BadgeringTheWitness1 4 months ago
ReasonTV, please interview Stefan Molyneux!
ih8ronpaulh8ers 4 months ago
From a theoretical standpoint it sounds like it could be a good idea. Utilizing competition would make the police force more accountable and thus more effective and efficient. I just don't know how it would be implemented and funded. If you funded it through taxes like we do now its wouldn't be as effective because bureaucrats would control the competition. If the system is transparent and the community has direct control, it could be a good idea.
marinegrunt0341 4 months ago
@marinegrunt0341 whaqt happends when private police force A goes to war with private police force B?
thexjib 4 months ago
@thexjib there is one very good reason it doesn't happen and wont happen because unlike government that can externalize its cost via taxation private companies would have to directly bare the cost of any conflict and therefore will seek to avoid it, private police forces also have an incentive to avoid conflict due to the damage such action has on there reputations, in other words fighting between police forces makes them look bad which makes them lose current and future customers.
monkeyfire087 4 months ago
I'd rather have a security force that actually does its job properly AND that I voluntarily pay for and subscribe to, then be robbed (er, "Taxed") by the government.
And also, look up David Friedman's essay on private law enforcement in Iceland. Private police works better than you might think.
PrivateSnowballTFC 4 months ago 3
I'd like to hear what some people think about volunteer fire fighters. Why can't large cities have volunteer departments payed for by donations and fund raisers? All funding would be private, but property and equipment would still be owned by the city. We would still elect fire commissioners, who would be autonomous from the city government.
SrgGoofy 4 months ago
@SrgGoofy As far as I've been able to determine the first fire brigade was started in the Roman Empire and was for profit. Later, when Rome burned, not only was Nero not fiddling but rather he used his own money to create a fire brigade to put out the fire. For nearly 2000 fire departments were private institutions. In America, for example, fire departments were paid by insurance companies (so no, you didn't negotiate prices with the fire department as your home burned to the ground).
PissedFechtmeister 4 months ago
For private police, you need private streets. Which we should have.
philbelanger2 4 months ago 3
@philbelanger2 Calm down. America's not even ready for decriminalizing marijuana or letting homosexuals marry.
boredmonkey29 4 months ago
I'm a libertarian, but I don't think it would be smart to get rid of government police. I'm all for private police, but we should still have public police be there for everyone. I can't imagine it would be good to have no public officers whatsoever.
TheTubbtubb 4 months ago
@TheTubbtubb Several months ago, I would have completely agreed with you. I started studying anarcho-capitalism heavily and it makes more and more sense when you dive into it. If you have any interest in learning about how an An-cap society could work, check out freedomainradio(d0t)com or the "Stefbot" channel on youtube. This video below, whether you agree or disagree with, will certainly change your perspective on what government does.
watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
ih8ronpaulh8ers 4 months ago 6
@ih8ronpaulh8ers Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.
TheTubbtubb 4 months ago
@ih8ronpaulh8ers Read "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," one of the best libertarian books ever written, for the other side of the story: the minarchist critique of Rothbardian anarchy.
kylethebomber 4 months ago
@kylethebomber I'll check out. Thanks. I'm always interested in arguments against anarchy but I can't say that I will ever drop my support of anarchism. Once you accept the non-aggression principle and realize that government violates that principle, its hard to turn your back on it. I have no doubt that anarchism has flaws, simply because people are flawed. Actually, I think one of the best arguments against statism is that people are flawed. So trusting them to a monopoly of force sounds scary
ih8ronpaulh8ers 4 months ago 16
@ih8ronpaulh8ers That's the best part about Nozik's book! He shows how an anarchic society could (maybe even *has to*) back into a minarchist society without violating the non-aggression principle!
kylethebomber 4 months ago
@ih8ronpaulh8ers
That's the most important part of the argument, I think. That freedom may not solve all our problems, but that keeping the state can only make them worse.
graaaaaagh 4 months ago
this is bullshit
kolearian 4 months ago
@kolearian Well, why is it bullshit?
californiarednek 4 months ago
What a dick... let the poor people police themselves and let the rich have hired gurads? WTF?
thraxman 4 months ago
@thraxman You really need to do some more reading, good sir.
FrameByFrameStudios 4 months ago
@thraxman Do you think theft is moral when you call it taxation?
ih8ronpaulh8ers 4 months ago
@ih8ronpaulh8ers About as amoral as the general premise underlying capitalism.
thraxman 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
even if it was biased towards the rich, so what? who are criminals going to be targeting? the poor or the rich? the ghetto or stores full of goods?
desirefirst 4 months ago
Comment removed
desirefirst 4 months ago
Individuals taking responsibility for their own personal defense is another prevailing trend that works well for this purpose. 40+ out of 50 states recognize firearms carry as an individual right that cannot be denied to the average citizen, which allows us to do a much better job of maintaining our own personal safety against threats of harm by criminals. This is perhaps the most direct form of privatization of public safety and it's very low cost and efficient.
phonepimpbill 4 months ago
I don't believe that Private Security should be allowed to obtain warrants or to search/seize private property.
SrgGoofy 4 months ago
@SrgGoofy
Why not if it is held to the same or higher standards that our current police are? Warrants are granted by judges upon being provided sufficient evidence to "warrant" the searching of private property. (this of course ignores the unconstitutional patriot act self warranting)
Berelore 4 months ago
@SrgGoofy such things would have to be approved by a judge, so i am for warrants.
Anonymous77513 4 months ago
@Anonymous77513 I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that Warranted searches were bad. What I meant by my comment was that I don't believe that a private security firm should be given the same powers that a government police office enjoys. In the case were a warrant must be served, a Investigator/Agent of the Justice Dept who is not involved in the case, should be present to ensure that the search/seizure is done lawfully.
SrgGoofy 4 months ago
I think the government (specifically the County Court) should have Investigators, but no "beat cops." The National Guard can be used in a SWAT/SRT roll, and under the supervision of an Investigator may issue warrants, similar to the FBIs agents and HRT. Private Security firms may be contracted with for Patrolling and Response.
SrgGoofy 4 months ago
It didn't seem to clear as to how "low income" families would be able to afford "private police". Would there just be different forms of the private police? For example" A "Better" police force that is employed by the wealthy (million dollar contract) as opposed to "sub-par" force that is employed by the poor (thousand dollar contract).
Just a thought
peacemake678 4 months ago
@peacemake678 Low income people can band together and form their own private police. Like a neighborhood watch.
JaySee5 4 months ago
Yes, lets all start competing police forces, just like they have in Somalia. Libertarians are retarded. The proper role of government is to hold a monopoly on retaliatory force and use it to ban force from society. Laissez-faire Capitalism is the proper social system and you can learn more about it at the Capitalism site (take the tour).
cmbbroker 4 months ago
@cmbbroker We use private security firms instead of the police for security in a suburb of Cape Town where I live. Also citzens police. tinyurl(.)com/6kow76g Government failed, the private organizations do a better job. Statistics of robberies on the site. Pooled usage of CCTV cameras for the suburb. The idea is only strange to you, because you aren't used to it.
dmg46664 4 months ago 3
I agree. Privatizing everything isn't necessarily the best thing to do, but we need to see everything they're doing. They also need to be punished extremely stringently for offenses/power abuse to be made an example of.
brunojluc4 4 months ago
This is one of the few small government positions of libertarianism that I disagree with. A private police force could be bought to enforce arbitrary laws by those with the money to do so. Corruption exists within government run police forces of course, but corruption will always exist in any organization. Transparency is what is needed.
liOVERLOADil 4 months ago
@liOVERLOADil It's up to the people to repeal the arbitrary laws you speak of so they cannot be enforced. A private company is far more transparent than a government run bureaucracy.
JaySee5 4 months ago 3
@liOVERLOADil
Your argument is actually invalid. It is one of the most common fallacies when discussing libertarian concepts. People assume that when someone says we should privatize X that means X is no longer accountable to the people / state. As with any other privatization there is typically a contract involved spelling out exactly what the private entity is responsible for accomplishing and if they don't they lose the contract. They can not enforce arbitrary laws unless the laws exist
Berelore 4 months ago
@liOVERLOADil I partly agree. I personally think that the more effective route to freer and more transparency in society would be through detaching the state from the service of arbitration and law. When the incestuous tie between the fist and the rationalization is broken, the lion's share injustices will rightly fall against state crime. This scenario will make necessary private police, transparent arbitration arrangements and transparent law founded on natural rights.
humanhiveanomaly 4 months ago
Comment removed
MyDormantSoul 4 months ago