Photo - child stalked by vulture

How does the government farm out security when it has no money to do so? It is all well and good to use a private agency, but they have to be paid. Without any taxes, you are asking them to do it for altruistic reasons.

Post 261

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 8:01am

Kurt: "Without any taxes, you are asking them to do it for altruistic reasons."

You must have forgotten my post #166 where I proposed that contributions to a minarchist government be voluntary, but all such contributions would be readily-accessible public records. Thus, it is not for "altruistic reasons", but to protect and maintain the citizen's reputation.

Sam

Post 262

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 8:13am

How does the government farm out security when it has no money to do so? It is all well and good to use a private agency, but they have to be paid. Without any taxes, you are asking them to do it for altruistic reasons.

Kurt, you could say that under our current system, the government "farms out" security to its own police and military. What do I mean by "the government" here? I mean the legislative, executive and judicial bodies. These are not agencies of force in and of themselves. The president is not himself an enforcer. He doesn't walk around with howitzer threatening to blow anyone up who doesn't follow his orders. The legislators are not themselves enforcers. They don't carry bazookas over their shoulders when they convene to pass new laws. The judges don't have sawed-off shotguns under their robes ready to blow away the defendant, attorneys or prosecutors if these folks don't follow their instructions. They "farm out" the use of force to the prison guards, the police and the military, who willingly follow their directions. There are countries, notably in Latin America, in which the Army does not respect the directives of its government officials, countries in which military coups are common occurrences. That could happen here as well, but we have a culture that respects the rule of law, one in which the police and the military WILLINGLY obey and enforce the decisions of its governing bodies. There is no reason why privately funded police couldn't and wouldn't do exactly the same thing.

Nor would they be acting altruistically. They would be paid by their customers for their services. As to funding for national defense, that could come through voluntary payment in a number of different ways. A portion of the money that people pay for police services could be allocated to the military simply for patriotic reasons. For example, when I go to Safeway to buy groceries, I'm routinely asked if I want to contribute to some form of cancer or medical research. Safeway then donates the contributions to the research foundations. This is just one possibility. Rand's method is another. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface here.

In any case, my purpose is not to outline all of the possible ways in which voluntary payment could fund military expenditures. But we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship, and so we allow "the people" to decide who governs. Why not let the people decide how much money is contributed to national defense? If you're going to object to that, why not object to letting voters determine government policy as well? Why not opt for a dictatorship in which popular governance is prohibited, because it might make us weak and defenseless?

There is no rational basis for opposing voluntary government financing, if you believe in popular rule instead of dictatorship.

For further discussion of this point, see Joe Rowlands Post #247. If you haven't read it, it's worth reading. If you have, it's worth reading again.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/30, 8:13pm)

Post 263

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 1:41pm

but that is my specific question - you are saying they are privately funded, but then don't they get orders from the individual who hired them as opposed to the government? If the government does not pay them, they won't do it - even now our government would not have much luck keeping either a military or police if it did not provide the funds.

I have seen your idea Sam and I don't necessarily have a problem with it - perhaps it can work in the future. In general, I am against taxes, but I think we have not yet reached the point where we can do that. In fact, maybe the whole point is moot really - don't we first need to convince people that we don't need most of the services government does, then convince them we don't need taxation (as such - we can certainly do some of the taxes on contracts and such that I also saw proposed).

How about small tarrifs on international trade? This is a small tax to pay for our security for doing business with us and our providing security and rule of law.

It just pains me to see people like someone I thought was a capitalist - Ben Stein - advocate higher taxes on rich people for the social contract.

Until we somehow eliminate this mentality, we are never even going to get close. Rand was right, we really need to change the culture.

Post 264

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 9:08pm

Kurt, you wrote,

but that is my specific question - you are saying they are privately funded, but then don't they get orders from the individual who hired them as opposed to the government? If the government does not pay them, they won't do it - even now our government would not have much luck keeping either a military or police if it did not provide the funds.

Suppose you hire an attorney to defend you in court. Since you, not the government, are paying the attorney, does that mean that you can order him to do whatever you want, such as fabricate or destroy evidence? Does it mean that he is not bound to uphold the law? No, of course not. The same is true of private police, who while having their salaries paid by private parties, already exist and operate within the law in a manner no different from private attorneys. Yes, private police take their (commercial) orders from the person who hires them, but only for the protection and defense of his rights. He cannot order them to break the law. They take their legal orders from the government.

In his book Cutting Back City Hall, Robert W. Poole, Jr. chronicles numerous examples of private police services already in operation in our major cities. In the thread "Anarchism versus Government" (Dissent Forum, January 16, Post #3), I cited the following examples:

Stretched across [San Francisco's] northern section are 62 private police beats, "owned" by private police officers who are paid by their customers--the businesses, apartment owners, and homeowners. The "Patrol Specials," as the officers are called, receive a complete police academy training, carry guns, and have full arrest powers. But they are fully private entrepreneurs who receive not a penny of tax money. Instead, once a Special "purchases" a beat (from its previous "owner")--generally for ten times its monthly revenue--it is up to him to negotiate contracts with as many of the beat's property owners as wish to purchase his services. Depending on what is provided, the fees can range from $10 to $1,000 per month.

Some customers, such as the Japan Trade Center, want and pay for 24-hour-a-day foot patrol. Others want only periodic drive-by checks. Special Roger Levit charges homeowners from $10 to $20 a month to watch a house while the occupants are on vacation--rotating house lights, taking in newspapers and mail, etc. For another $30 his men will make regular on-foot backyard checks. Small retail stores may pay as little as $35 a month, while a large apartment house wanting three to six nightly inspections may pay $450.

The San Francisco system thus provides a vast diversity of police services, tailored to the needs of the individual customers who pay for what they want... The taxpayers can neither afford to provide the specialized patrol services, nor should they have to. The user-pays principle is far more equitable. And in San Francisco it has stood the test of time. The city's private beats date back to the city's beginnings in the 1850s, and were formalized in its 1899 charter.

In the same way, U.S. companies operating abroad could hire their own private soldiers to defend their property rights, so long as these soldiers were willing to abide by the rules and regulations governing the actions of U.S. military personnel.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/30, 9:30pm)

Post 265

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 10:42pm

In today�s context, with a government that is virtually guaranteed to have the upper hand due to its taxing power, there is no problem with private security forces; If they become rogue, the government can and will subdue them.

However, the calculus changes in a context of voluntary government funding. Bill has pointed out that business can do everything more efficiently than government, so it�s fair to project that in time the government will have no police or soldiers of its own, those becoming more and more, until exclusively for practical purposes, in private hands.

Why not take this to its logical end? I have fists, you have fists, everyone has fists. We�ll elect representatives to tell us what the law is and we�ll all obey that law and go from there. If I see any rogue fists, I�ll subdue them. You�ll do the same. No one will step outside the law because they will know that fists are coming for them if they do. The government itself will be unable to do anything about anything, but that�s no problem because all of us will follow whatever it says the protocol should be.

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 8/30, 11:13pm)

Post 266

Friday, August 31, 2007 - 12:00am

In today�s context, with a government that is virtually guaranteed to have the upper hand due to its taxing power, there is no problem with private security forces; If they become rogue, the government can and will subdue them.

However, the calculus changes in a context of voluntary government funding.

No, it doesn't. As I've pointed out before, if the government police can be trusted to respect the law on their own, then so can private police. On the other hand, if the private police need an overseer, which is the government police, then the government police also need an overseer. So who will protect us from our protectors? If the government police have to be trusted to respect and obey the law on their own, then why can't the private police be trusted to do so?

Bill has pointed out that business can do everything more efficiently than government, so it�s fair to project that in time the government will have no police or soldiers of its own, those becoming more and more, until exclusively for practical purposes, in private hands.

Private police are, in a sense, government police. The only difference is that private police work for profit, are not funded by money looted from taxpayers, and compete with other police agencies to offer better protection and customer service than their rivals, whereas the government police exist on stolen wealth and have no incentive to do a decent job of protecting the public. But the job of private police is still to enforce the law, just as it is the job of government police. There is no more reason to assume that private police would degenerate into rogue cops than there is to assume that the government police would. In fact, there is less reason to assume it.

Why not take this to its logical end? I have fists, you have fists, everyone has fists. We�ll elect representatives to tell us what the law is and we�ll all obey that law and go from there. If I see any rogue fists, I�ll subdue them. You�ll do the same. No one will step outside the law because they will know that fists are coming for them if they do.

This is not the logical end of the system I advocate. In order to qualify as a police officer, one would have to know the law and be trained to follow the government's protocol and enforcement procedures and then be licensed. If one were, one could work as a police officer, but most people wouldn't undergo this kind of rigorous training just to be able personally to defend their own rights, any more than most people would become surgeons, just so they could perform medical procedures on their own children. People would prefer to leave the defense of their rights to specialists, just as they do other kinds of services. Our economy is one of specialization and a division of labor. There is no reason to assume that police services wouldn't fit this pattern.

- Bill

Post 267

Friday, August 31, 2007 - 3:25am

Let�s be clear, not that this settles the debate, but let�s be clear about who is going outside Objectivist politics.

�Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms �competition� and �government.� Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately.� Ayn Rand, The Nature of Government.

�Private police are, in a sense, government police.�

Bill,

Other than the incantation �they would answer to the government,� how does your proposal differ from anarcho-cap?

Post 268

Friday, August 31, 2007 - 3:42am

�People would prefer to leave the defense of their rights to specialists, just as they do other kinds of services. Our economy is one of specialization and a division of labor. There is no reason to assume that police services wouldn't fit this pattern.�

Force is not like �other kinds of services.� THAT is the reason that police services wouldn�t fit this pattern.

Post 269

Friday, August 31, 2007 - 6:26am

Bill, your example is a failure, and I will tell you why:

If I hire an attorney, it is because I need defense, correct? I also have no problem if I hire a security agency to protect me - fine - lets avoid the issue of whether or not they will remain within the law and assume that they will.

Who pays for the military hired out by the government?
Who pays for border patrol and coast guard?
Who pays to arrest people who commit crimes when there is no protection company involved?

Are you saying that - and you could be, I am not sure - if you do not say buy "protection insurance" you are a free target for criminals? It could work that way, I agree, I am just not sure if I think that is best.

Post 270

Friday, August 31, 2007 - 9:19am

Jon wrote,

Let�s be clear, not that this settles the debate, but let�s be clear about who is going outside Objectivist politics.

He then quotes Ayn Rand:

Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms 'competition' and 'government.' Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. (Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government," p. 113)

You're dropping context, Jon, and you evidently haven't read my other posts on this subject. Let's fill in the context by quoting the passage that immediately precedes the one that you quoted:

Instead of a single, monopolistic government, [the anarchists] declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to "shop" and to patronize whatever government he chooses.(pp. 112, 113)

Is this what I am advocating? No, it isn't. I have already stated that I am opposed, just as Rand is, to competing governments (i.e., to competing legal systems) operating within the same geographical area. Earlier in the same essay, she writes:

The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. [ I agree.] Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. [I agree.] If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds and vendettas. [I agree.]

If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. [I agree.]

This is the task of a government -- of a proper government -- its basic task, its moral justification and the reason why men do need a government. [I agree.]

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control -- i.e., under objectively defined laws." (p. 109).

Precisely! But there is no reason why those laws cannot be enforced by private police who are paid by the customers they serve. Again, as I noted in an earlier post, we already have private police with full arrest powers, who are operating within our major cities.

I wrote, �Private police are, in a sense, government police.�

Bill,

Other than the incantation �they would answer to the government,� how does your proposal differ from anarcho-cap?

Why do you call it an "incantation"? I said that they would take their legal orders from the government in the same way that the public police do today, which simply means that they would voluntarily abide by the law. If this is an "incantation" for private police, it is no less an "incantation" for public police. As for how my proposal differs from anarcho-capitalism, see above.

I wrote, �People would prefer to leave the defense of their rights to specialists, just as they do other kinds of services. Our economy is one of specialization and a division of labor. There is no reason to assume that police services wouldn't fit this pattern.�

Force is not like �other kinds of services.� THAT is the reason that police services wouldn�t fit this pattern.

Again, you are dropping context. What I meant by "fit this pattern" is that police services would be provided by specialists, which they would.

The sense in which police services are not like other kinds of services is that they involve the use of force, but why is that a relevant difference for my argument? All it means is that individual citizens cannot unilaterally dispense justice by taking the law into their own hands -- by becoming their own judge, jury and executioner. But I'm not advocating they do. I'm saying that they must abide by the law and adhere to the government's protocol for administering justice in the same way that public police do today.

- Bill

Post 271

Friday, August 31, 2007 - 1:28pm

Bill,

I call it an incantation because you write as though they would answer always to the government because it is your proposal that they would. Your proposal is logically consistent; I am saying it bears no resemblance to what I know about how people actually act. For example, I observe that the guy who pays the bill always calls the shots and that the guy with the biggest guns always turns out to be the actual final arbiter. You display an imperviousness to these points, responding, in effect, �Well, but not under my proposal. Under my proposal the government would call all the shots and be the final arbiter, even though it might have no levers of force in its own possession.� I think your plan would not survive contact with reality.

We�re at an impasse, so I don�t know what else to say.

Post 272

Friday, August 31, 2007 - 4:51pm

The military in the US has the biggest guns, and yet, they defer to a civilian (the President). Congress makes all of the laws, and yet they have no power. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter, and not a gun to be had. Even if you look at the government as some kind of abstract whole, the elected representatives constantly give up positions of power because some people said (via voting) that they prefer someone else to do the job.

I guess reality wouldn't survive contact with reality.

I think there are a few mistakes in this thread that is making communication tough.

First, there's the idea that government is full of angels. This is embodied by the belief that a private force that gets too strong will take over, while arguing that a public force (i.e., a force that's funded through taxation) somehow avoids this problem. Instead of the classical liberal idea of decentralizing control, we're seeing people promote a strong (and absolute) centralization/consolidation of power, as if there was no problems at all with that. There is a double standard being applied here. Criticisms are leveled against private groups while taxation-funded public groups are not judged, or judged by a lighter standard. If we were arguing with socialists, we'd see the same kinds of arguments. We'd see criticisms of market problems, and the assumption would be that government would somehow get it right.

Another problem comes from treating government as a distinct body that makes all of the decisions. The government is not some people who rule the rest of us. It is an organization designed to fulfill the decision making requirements about the use of force (Legislative branch makes the laws, Judicial branch applies those to concrete cases), and it's secondary function is to enforce those. The citizens are part of this process. By electing representatives to run the organization, they wield an indirect control on the laws and the execution. By sitting on juries, they apply the laws to concrete situations. By voting directly on laws (usually at the local level), they sometimes directly control the law making. The government can be thought of as a decision making process. The process is organized in a particular way, and we often hire specialists or full-time employees to keep it functioning smoothly.

Why is any of this important? Because if we think of government as just the people being paid, it's simple to think that the military and police are part of that group, and so there's no real separation between the people making the decisions, and the people enforcing it. But if you recognize that the entire citizenry of the country is part of this decision making process, you're less able to make the mistake that those making the decisions and enforcing them are the same group. They clearly are not. And everyone who thinks that making these different groups is impossible is claiming that reality is impossible, because we certainly have this separation today.

And then there's the classical liberal idea of Separation of Powers. The Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary are all split into different groups. Our founding fathers intentionally created a system where those making the laws were different from those enforcing the laws, which is also different from those applying the laws in concrete cases. Reading this thread, the founding fathers apparently couldn't be more wrong! Evidently separating these powers really just made the Executive branch the real decision makers, and Congress and the judiciary are powerless! That's news to me!

And that's another problem with this thread. Facts about the way the world works today are ignored. The miliary not taking over even though they probably have the capability should count as a counter-proof to the idea that the group with the biggest guns always makes the decisions. This isn't a matter of probability. The statement was made quite clearly that it must happen that way. And yet it doesn't. The theory is entirely wrong then. The appropriate theory is that in some cases, the group with the biggest guns still obeys the rules of others, and in some cases they don't. Then the question should be, is it possible to get the first and avoid the second? This would require an attempt to hypothesize the causal differences, and then try to prove the hypothesis. But instead, the approach has been to try to rule it out as impossible. It's clearly not!

I fully understand the difficulty people might have accepting the idea that all enforcement of the law could be privately handled. It's totally alien, and because of that, seems risky! But the reasons stated so far why it would be a disaster are either just plain wrong, or apply equally to a public enforcement.

Post 273

Saturday, September 1, 2007 - 5:02pm

Kurt wrote,

Bill, your example is a failure, and I will tell you why:

If I hire an attorney, it is because I need defense, correct? I also have no problem if I hire a security agency to protect me - fine - lets avoid the issue of whether or not they will remain within the law and assume that they will.

Right, and let's avoid the issue of whether or not a monopolistic agency of force like the U.S. military will remain within the law, and assume that it will, even though it has no one else to oppose it if it decides to stage a military coup. And let's avoid the issue of whether or not the U.S. government will respect the rights of its citizens, and assume that it will, even though it already steals over 40% of their income and can legally rob them any time it chooses.

I think I see where you�re coming from, Kurt. You want to place the burden of proof on the people to justify their right to voluntary financing rather than on the government to justify its expropriation of their wealth. Your position is, don�t give the people the right to finance their government as they choose; give the government the right to seize the people�s wealth as it chooses. In other words, give the statist thieves a license to steal, and make their victims prove why they shouldn�t be stolen from. You�ll excuse me if I don�t share that premise.

Who pays for the military hired out by the government? you ask. Whoever values having a military and wants their country defended from foreign enemies, which means most patriotic Americans. But observe that they would also have the right to decide how much of their income they wished to devote to that service. The amount they contribute would not be decided by a government dictator; it would be decided by the people who pay the bill. Who pays for border patrol and coast guard? you ask. Same answer. Who pays to arrest people who commit crimes when there is no protection company involved? Whoever wants these criminals off the street and is afraid they�ll be their next victim.

Why do you assume that unless people are forced to contribute money towards their own protection, they won�t value it enough to fund it voluntarily? They already contribute large amounts of money to charities of various kinds, which have nothing to do with their safety and survival. Why on earth wouldn�t they contribute even more to defend their own lives and property?

I could go on to propose various methods by which these monies are collected and distributed, but with a little imagination I�m sure you can think of some yourself. The important point in all of this is that if people are left free to pursue their own interests, they�ll undoubtedly do better for themselves than if they are forced to do what the government thinks is good for them.

Bill

Post 274

Saturday, September 1, 2007 - 11:15pm

�The military in the US has the biggest guns, and yet, they defer to a civilian (the President). Congress makes all of the laws, and yet they have no power. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter, and not a gun to be had. Even if you look at the government as some kind of abstract whole, the elected representatives constantly give up positions of power because some people said (via voting) that they prefer someone else to do the job.� [Joe]

Joe, you are naming branches of a SINGLE government. If you and Bill were proposing a new branch of government, or another branch of the military, then my objection, in principle, would not come up. But you are not proposing another branch of a single government; rather, you are proposing independent entities that are �private.� You can�t say that this is no different than what happened when the Marines were created, because it IS different as you are proposing force deployment that is not a part of the government.

I haven�t said the biggest guns will instantly rise to preeminence, I�ve said that when push comes to shove, they will. I have been interpreted down to the micro level as though I am saying that the Marine with the biggest gun would be dictator by now, and since he isn�t, the assertion must be false. But that�s not what I mean. I mean that the organization, including all its branches, with the superior capacity for applying force will be the final arbiter. Has this ever been false? Did the outfit with the most/biggest guns not prevail in the rebellion of 1860, for example?

�Private enforcement� would increase the potential for civil war, not when such is limited to security guards with nightsticks and private beats in San Fran, but certainly when such becomes the predominant practice. You guys are suggesting any number of Nukes, Inc., and not as a branch or any other aspect of government itself, but as separate, private entities. That�s no way to secure the use of force under objective law, that�s a tinderbox.

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 9/01, 11:57pm)

Post 275

Sunday, September 2, 2007 - 1:51am

And please do not respond to the nukes issue by saying it�s OK because it�s the situation we have today�any government that wants them and can make them will have them. You guys are proposing that nukes be spread across multiple private hands, within the jurisdiction yet not in the possession of the government of that jurisdiction.

Post 276

Sunday, September 2, 2007 - 3:11pm

Jon, you haven't addressed my points at all. You simply said they are branches of the SAME government. But this is flawed. They are distinct groups. Simply labelling them as a single group does not make it so. It does not magically transform them into a single group who makes the decisions and also enforces them. You've only obscured the picture.

If your argument is that a simple label somehow makes all the problems go away, then we could do what I suggested in an earlier post. We could just say all of the private agencies are part of the government as well. And presto! By magic, we no longer need to fear anything! Does a name really change the substance? If you think it does, you're treating words like 'government' as floating abstractions, unconnected from reality.

And in fact, it is entirely appropriate to label these private agencies as part of the government. The enforcement (or executive) branch of the government. They are fulfilling a role of government. This isn't just a word game to dismiss your arguments. These agencies would be heavily controlled, severely limited in what they can do, specifically trained and required to follow the laws. They would probably have to be licensed and approved, run in a transparent manner, etc. They would be an arm of the government, just as the military is now. The difference is, they would be privately funded.

So again, before you started going off on nukes or wild assumptions about civil war and military coups, you need to recognize that you're treating your own conception of government with a much lighter standard. You fault the privatization scheme by saying one group is making the decisions and other groups are enforcing them, but you don't see that your own position is equally flawed by that standard. Instead, you simply ignore it. You also treat strengths of the privatization scheme, like a more thorough separation of powers, decentralization of power, and lack of taxation, as if those were flaws, while preaching a system of consolidated power, no separation of powers, and taxation.

Until you're willing to address these blatant flaws in your position, I see no reason to waste time with your other objections. We don't even have the foundations for a possible rational conversation. If you didn't give an automatic pass to government, for instance, you might ask yourself why it is that our own military doesn't simply take over, since it has the biggest guns. Or why they do take over in other countries. You might ask what are the causes of civil wars, and whether widespread decentralization of power is conducive to this or not. You might consider the strengths of our founding father's decisions, and ask yourself how separation of powers, checks and balances, decentralization of power (through federalization, for instance), and the rule of law limits tyranny, instead of promotes it.

But as long as you maintain the illusion that our government is some kind of unified entity that benevolently passes laws and enforces them for the good of the people without the possibility of corruption, of course everything else looks bad in comparison.

Post 277

Sunday, September 2, 2007 - 7:56pm

Joe,

I appreciate your patience, though I�m still not seeing consistency or coherence in your argument. It�s like you are saying that when the Air Force was added, we didn�t see any increase in volatility or risk of rogue branches, same for when the Marines were created. Of course, I can go along with that.

But now I can�t tell if this is all you are suggesting, or if you are suggesting, as I thought before, truly independent �private� enforcement agencies. You labeled it this way before, but now you call them part of the government. They can�t be both, so I am going with the latter meaning for now. You wrote, �The difference is, they would be privately funded.� I assume you mean that the only difference is that they would be privately funded. If I am on the right track here, as to what exactly you propose, then it would be like if the Marines went from its funding today to begging for voluntary funding, or if a �corps� of the cops in a city went from its current funding mechanism to begging for voluntary funding. If this is all you mean, and the new �corps� of city cops would answer to the chief, who served at the pleasure of the mayor, etc., then a part of my concern would be addressed. This sounds to me like just the sort of alternative funding scheme that should be tried, and I am confident John A., Kurt E. and Ted K. would agree. This would have to mean that the police chief could fire at will, meaning they�re HIS employees and not employees of any new �agency.� I note that this would imply no new separate agencies at all.

This would be like if the leaders of a city said, �We�re having budget problems. Some people say police funding needs to be increased, but others say not. We�re going to devolve the decision, so to say. Instead of the city council deciding to increase or not, we�re going to leave funding where it is. If �the people� believe that more police are required, then let them make donations. A cop, with training, benefits, etc. costs $100,000. So if donations reach $100,000, we�ll be able to hire one more cop, if they come in at $1,000,000, we�ll hire ten more, and so on.� This sounds great to me! If this is what you mean, my concerns evaporate.

I would have been concerned about some one group, say a 25,000-member church with very different ideas about justice contributing funds that would allow �their� cops to dwarf the public cops, but I am less concerned about that now if I understand the proposed scheme correctly. If I don�t understand your proposal correctly here, and you really are proposing that a church be allowed to create an �enforcement agency� that is independent and private, even if mandated under law to follow the law, then my concerns re-arise. Because even if this agency follows the law for a long time, I envision other groups creating their own agencies simply to make ready for the day that the dominant church-created agency springs its plan. Now we have a build-up �just in case,� which seems to me a recipe for volatility.

Post 278

Monday, September 3, 2007 - 1:48am

Joe,

I apologize for my confusion. I have read your and Bill�s posts again and it is clear now that neither of you are talking about supplementing existing government police through new and creative means, but rather truly separate entities. You said in one post that you can understand how this sounds risky, and it does, it sounds very risky to me. Especially if this idea were applied not just to private police and courts, but private militaries as well.

And I don�t see the allure, either. Bill suggested private courts while assuring that they would be required to follow the protocols of existing government courts. If that would be the case, where would be the opportunity for improvement of service or efficiency? Same for the police. Bill wrote, (in another thread I think,) that private police would not waste their time on silly issues like drug or prostitution stings because their customers would demand real rights protection. Yet, if the government were regulating them, wouldn�t it demand they enforce ALL the laws? For that matter, we see that the public shows no enthusiasm today for electing law makers who will repeal drug laws, so can�t we expect that the same public would be just as likely to heavily fund private police that SPECIALIZE in drug law enforcement? This seems just as likely to me as what Bill expects.

I�ll give it more thought, but honestly I think it�s a bad idea.

Post 279

Monday, September 3, 2007 - 10:28am