About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 9:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Market for Force:
The Consequences of Privatizing Security
Deborah D. Avant, George Washington University
published August 2005 by Cambridge University Press.

The legitimate use of force is generally presumed to be the realm of the state. However, the flourishing role of the private sector in security over the last twenty years has brought this into question.

In this book Deborah Avant examines the privatization of security and its impact on the control of force.  She describes the growth of private security companies, explains how the industry works, and describes its range of customers - including states, non-government organisations and commercial transnational corporations.

She charts the inevitable trade-offs that the market for force imposes on the states, firms and people wishing to control it, suggests a new way to think about the control of force, and offers a model of institutional analysis that draws on both economic and sociological reasoning. The book contains case studies drawn from the US and Europe as well as Africa and the Middle East.
 http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521615356

Deborah Avant is Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Institute for Global and International Studies. Her research (funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Olin Foundation, and the Smith Richardson Foundation, among others) has focused on civil-military relations, military change, and the politics of controlling violence.

Dr. Avant is the author of Political Institutions and Military Change: Lessons From Peripheral Wars (Cornell University Press, 1994) and The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security (Cambridge University Press, 2005), along with many articles in such journals as International Organization, International Studies Quarterly, Armed Forces and Society, Review of International Studies, and Foreign Policy.
http://www.gwu.edu/~elliott/faculty/avant.cfm

We commonly associate security with the state and assume that security is a fundamental feature of government. Even those who write about the way globalization is undermining state authority in many areas generally assume that security is still the realm of governments. In the 1990s, though, PSCs became more and more involved in the delivery of services: providing logistics services, training, giving operational support, and staffing international police contingents. The private sector also increasingly financed security services: both international NGOs and transnational corporations used the financing of security to better achieve their goals.

To begin, consider a few examples. During the 1990s, Sierra Leone hired Executive Outcomes to help train and support its troops to counter the RUF insurgency. The Bosnians hired MPRI to advise and train their military after the Dayton Peace Accords. Every single international civilian police officer the U.S. sent abroad in the 1990s was a DynCorp employee. When WWF, faced with the possible extinction of a species of rhino in the Democratic Republic of Congo, solicited bid from PSCs to train and protect park guards.

Global corporations like, BP, Exxon, DeBeers and others contracted with private security companies for site security, security force training, and security planning all over the globe. --Dr. Deborah Avant, writing for Foreign Policy Research Institutie, April 2006
http://www.fpri.org/enotes/200604.military.avant.privatemilitarycompanies.html



(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/25, 9:59am)


Post 61

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 3:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
  (moved -- MEM)

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/30, 3:14pm)


Post 62

Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 4:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am currently taking a class in "Community Corrections" (CRIM 332) at Eastern Michigan University where I am enrolled in Criminology with a concentration in police administration.

I also serve on the city/county citizens advisory board for community corrections.  (I was appointed last year by the county board of commissioners.)

Locking them all up and throwing away the key is one option.  Depending on your state, you would need to triple or quintuple the available prison space to house them all.

Once you start letting them out, you have to face the fact that you have offenders in your community.  They might be paroled.  They might be sentenced to probation.  Eventually, if nothing else, they serve their time and come back.  Even before they were processed into prisons and jails, they were in your community in the first place.  In this day, they are not even violent, but only criminals, people like Martha Stewart, really, except that they are black and instead of selling lace curtains or common stock, they sold drugs.

It is true that a small number (about 30% to 35%) of criminals are recidivists.  It is true that many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders.  That still leaves a large number of people. 

If we accept as a premise that socialism is the wrong way to do things, then we have to ask what alternatives there may be to prison.  Prison is certainly more humane than older methods, such as drawing and quartering for 100 major offenses, or slitting of noses and ears or branding for minor offenses.  Still, the fact is that prisons are to criminal justice what collectivized farms are to agriculture.


Post 63

Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 7:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Still, the fact is that prisons are to criminal justice what collectivized farms are to agriculture.

Astutely said...


Post 64

Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 7:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well Michael what is the alternative?  I agree non-crimes like drugs have to be thrown out - I think that would leave enough space for the real bad guys.

Post 65

Friday, January 19, 2007 - 10:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well Michael what is the alternative?  I agree non-crimes like drugs have to be thrown out - I think that would leave enough space for the real bad guys.
Prison as we know it is not a solution.

Cognitive therapy seems to be more successful, based on the numbers, not that it is overwhelming, but only "more successful."

Current technologies include various electronic tethers and automatic reporting.

In terms of "utopian" solutions, I wonder if skin dyes might not be a solution.  You color someone for 20 years or life and they can be out and about but everyone would know.  (See "Country of the Kind" by Damon Knight.)  Transporting is fine.  Emptying London allowed bobbies to be unarmed for 170 years.  That does create a new problem, of course.

The problem with prisons -- even for "real bad guys" -- is appropriate justice.  If some embezzles or someone else robs or a third person assaults, on what basis do you decide to put who away for how long?  Sooner or later, they all come back.

You have to do more than incarcerate or else all you have done is postpone the next problem.


Post 66

Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 8:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, Michael, you're no fun.  Please say something I can DISAGREE with, damn it!

Thanks.


Post 67

Friday, February 23, 2007 - 10:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is true what Dorothy Parker said about horticulture. 


Post 68

Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 10:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In the thread about the homeless man who was given $100,000 (http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/1024.shtml) Ed Thompson told a story about being awakened at 1:00 AM.  Others had some comments on that, which prompted me to post my own "One A.M." story.

In 1999-2000, I was working for Coin World newspaper, owned by Amos Press of Sidney, Ohio.  Founded after the Civil War, Amos Press has been family-owned all this time. Until mid-2000, in addition to owning huge hobby publications (Linn's and Scott's for stamps as well as CW), they also printed over 20 local newspapers serving communities in southwest Ohio.  Amos Press has been a pillar of the community in Sidney for over 100 years.

At that time, I was also flying out of Sidney Airport (I78) and I kept a flight bag in my car with my log, charts, etc., etc., etc. and more etc. The driver's window had failed a few months before I moved to Sidney, locking halfway down.  My fix was a sheet of plexi, cut to fit and duct-taped into place.

About 1:30 one morning in the summer of 1999, a drunk guy was making noise in the parking lot of the apartment complex.  He came into my building, still calling for someone -- a girl's name -- and (wouldn't you know it?) he banged on my door.  So, I called the police.  I did not open the door.  The cops showed up, engaged him in the parking lot and then came to my apartment.  The officer asked if he could search my apartment for this guy's girl friend.  I said, "No."  I said, further, "Look, even if it wasn't ridiculous, I work for Amos Press.  It is a matter of professionalism.  I cannot let you in without a warrant."  He said, "Do you think I need a warrant?"  I asked, "Do you think you have probable cause?"  He left.

Two mornings later, when I went out to my car, it had been broken into.  The plexiglass had been pulled out, the rear door was still open.  Everything from the flight bag was laid out on the back seat, including a gold British sovereign coin, two knifes, and more stuff that any thief would take rather than leave.


Post 69

Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 10:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gotta love how piggies 'search' things. They could at least put the crap back. That's what I do when I search a customer's bag when our stupid anti-theft alarm goes off. Oi!

-- Bridget

Post 70

Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 11:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But that's just it: it wasn't a "search" by the cops, legitimate or illegitimate. It was an act of vandalism meant to send Michael a message. Nothing more. It wasn't even meant to be considered anything else.


Post 71

Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 3:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That was my first impression, as well, Erica.  But then I thought about it.  Why would the drunk go to all that trouble?  He was clearly disoriented and had mistaken Micheal and/or his apartment for someone/someplace else.  Unless Michael did something additional besides calling the cops, the guy is unlikely to engage in some kind of wierd vendetta.

So, that leaves the cops.  As Michael had stood up to them, they were pissed.  So, they did a little searching on their own, no doubt hoping to find something for which they could bust Michael.  Given what happened, I would suspect that if they had found a baggie of pot or something, then they would have made up a probable cause to persuade a judge to issue a search warrant, and that baggie, or a similar one, would have been "found" in his apartment.  But, since, from what he had said plus what they found in his car he clearly had connections and would have been more trouble than the arrest would have been worth, they did the search and then left the stuff lieing out that way as a token of their esteem - i.e., "don't f**k with us."

If Micheal had been black, of course, they would have searched his apartment anyway from the first.


Post 72

Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 7:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Phil.

Sorry if I was unclear in my last post. I meant that I thought the cops had done the vandalizing, not the drunk guy. I only meant to point out to Bridget that it wasn't really a "search" by them---it was intentional vandalism.

Erica


Post 73

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 5:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh, well, Erica, eventually we'll get our stories straight...

Presumption can be risky for sure.  I recall one night eating at a Jack-In-The-Box and suddenly hearing the sounds of a fight.  Right outside the restaurant a BIG 40-ish black guy was beating the crap out of this skinny blond teenage kid.  Of course, my first impulse was to defend the teenager.  Turns out it was lucky that others intervened as the reality was that the kid had attacked the other guy with nunchoks, apparently for no cause whatever.  Both were total strangers to each other.  I don't know if it was racially motivated, either, although that suspicion is reasonable.   Engage mind before fists - or keyboard.


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 74

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 7:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Patrol Beat 144 in Kansas City was a perfect example of a "hot spot": an area that receives a disproprortionate number of calls for police service and/or has a high crime rate.  A study for the Minneapolis police department found that only 5% of the addresses in the city accounted for 64% of the calls while 60% of the addresses never called for any reason.  A relatively small number of citizens in a community are extremely high consumers of police services. -- The Police in America: An Introduction by Samuel Walker and Charles M. Katz, Sixth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008, page 205.
Given that Objectivism prefers not to tax and given that the situation above is an example of socialism -- to each according to their need -- how do you organize the police as a government monopoly in such a way as to get payments from those who use services without denying them their socially contracted right to protection of their lives and property?

As a consistent advocate of capitalism, I recognize that the situation above can only be resolved of its contradictions by completely removing the government from the situation.  Socialism does not and cannot work.  Some people might actually go without police service (or shoes, for that matter). On the other hand, few human wants (and, I submit, no needs) go unaddressed in a market society.


Post 75

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 5:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike, glad to see you back.

Post 76

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 10:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike, glad to see you back.
Mike, while I disagree with you up to 20% of the time, I must concur with the above sentiment -- as it has been formulated.

;-)

Ed


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 77

Saturday, October 20, 2007 - 3:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 
Michael - have you ever been towed?  That is a terrible example.  They steal your car, which is far more valuable than any minor tresspass that may or may not have taken place.  Then they hold it hostage until you pay their excessive fees.  You have zero recourse to courts or due process.



I was at a meeting devoted to opposing the ICE raids and similar offences against basic human rights this morning.  One of the common tactics of the local police is to stage ID checkpoints in low-income minority areas.  They used to be justified as DUI checkpoints, but now they just refer to them as "checkpoints."  At a "checkpoint" you are required to show a drivers license and proof of insurance - without any evidence of any crime.  Lacking either means that your car is towed.  The last one I ran into involved at least thirty officers and a long line of tow trucks. 

The vehicle is towed and will spend the next 30 days in mandatory storage at the legally designated police tow year, accumulating outrageous storage fees, typically amounting to over $2,000 by the end.  If no one comes forward with the required ID, they won't release the vehicle, which is then auctioned after 30 days, and if the proceeds are less than the amount "owed" to the tow yard, the owner is sent a bill for the difference, in addition to losing their car.  They are supposed to allow you to request a hearing before the extended time, but they typically put you on hold endlessly and then hang up until you give up, or the person who can authorize the hearing is never available.

When I lived in Long Beach in the early '80's, one of my cars was subject to a police tow once when I drove my other car up to San Jose for the LP conference, and the city decided to do street repair without posting the notices for the required three days first.  When I went to pick it up in Signal Hill, I could see a whole bunch of police badges pinned to the wall behind the counter.  The guy who let me into the tow yard after much argument - he wanted money up front before I would be allowed to inspect my car for damage - told me that I was not allowed to start my car, which I did anyway, at which point I discovered that someone had gratuitously drained the radiator.  After he finished SCREAMING at me about starting my motor, of course he had no water for the radiator.

I drove it dry to a used car place just down the street, where the owner told me that the Signal Hill police tow, where all cars towed in Long Beach by the cops were sent,  was actually owned and operated by off-duty Signal Hill cops, while the Long Beach police tow, where all cars towed by order of the Signal Hill cops were sent, was owned and operated by off-duty Long Beach police.  ... Thereby, of course, avoiding conflict of interest...  ;-)

Since then, I've brought the subject up to a friend who is a retired paralegal with extensive criminal law experience.  He tells me that this is a very typical arrangement, more the rule than the exception here in the OC.  There are special laws, in addition, protecting tow drivers from liability.  And, until recently, when some local guy chasing his car on foot was run over and killed by the tow driver, tow companies had carte blanc authority to tow ANY car, even in a totally private complex, which violated any parking rule, even if someone had stopped momentarily to run into a building to pick up  a child, for example, and without any persmission from the complex's owners.  Tow drivers would lurk about such complexes, waiting to swoop the instant that someone left their vehicle.

If you do have to call for a tow, BTW, STAY WITH THE CAR!!!!!  DO NOT trust ANY tow driver.  The typical tow driver makes about $5~$10 per tow, often less than minimum wage, and is the sort of person who could not get a minimum wage job.  Many tow drivers are ex-cons and some moonlight as car thieves, where having a tow truck is especially convenient.  Many do not even have driver's licences.  Forget all the specs that say that - to avoid destroying your transmission - the car must be towed from a specific end and not over, say, 40 mph.  If you are not RIGHT THERE and do not know and INSIST, the tow driver will almost invariable grab the most convenient end and head for the freeway.  Bye, bye transmission...

(I worked for a couple weeks as a tow driver trainee, during the early '80's recession.  It was a real eye-opener.)

BTW, regarding competing governments in the same geographical area, that was precisely the case in Vanuatu, formerly the New Hebrides, with a joint rule by the French, British and native governments.  There were three separate court systems, with three distinct sets of laws.  You could choose which one to go to, and if other parties preferred a different one, there were prior agreements as to how to set up a joint court panel to hear the case.  I don't think that their respective police forces ever went to war.

(Edited by Phil Osborn on 10/20, 4:01pm)

(Edited by Phil Osborn on 10/20, 4:03pm)


Post 78

Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 6:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael E. Marotta wrote:
Given that Objectivism prefers not to tax and given that the situation above is an example of socialism -- to each according to their need -- how do you organize the police as a government monopoly in such a way as to get payments from those who use services without denying them their socially contracted right to protection of their lives and property?
The way an insurance company handles the varying amounts of risk among its customers -- higher premiums for higher risks. It's probably like that now to some extent if different communities were compared. Higher crime communities need more police, which cost more, and is reflected in taxes.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 79

Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 8:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Higher crime communities need more police, which cost more, and is reflected in taxes.

Except that higher crime areas are usually those communities with those least able to afford paying those taxes.....


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.