| | Jon, I still don't think you're getting the idea. Since I haven't talked to Bill about the details of this topic outside of this thread, I can't be sure that we're even suggesting the exact same thing. So I don't want to speak for him. But hopefully the following description removes some of your confusion.
I'm imagining living in some crappy, crime-ridden town. I'm tired of it, and want to do something about it. Maybe there is an existing police force and they aren't doing the job, or maybe there isn't. So I start my own. I get funding, possibly through contracts, donations, or fees. I hire a few people. Of course, we can't just go around killing criminals or wielding force. We can't be judge, jury, and executioners. We still have to except the decision making authority of the government, which we recognize as an objective process of evaluating the use of force in society, both in general, and as it applies in specific cases. So the first thing that needs to happen is to train the officers in the limits of their authority. Basically, this amounts to the same limits as police have. No illegal search or seisures. Must get warrants, or have probable cause. Must never use excessive force. Etc., etc. Possibly part of this process requires a government license (Bill might disagree...I'm open to debate on it), confirming we have the appropriate training and are recognized by the government as legitimate enforcers of their laws. Of course, I'd also have to train the men to properly investigate crimes, chase criminals, etc. The day to day part of the job. More than likely there would be existing schools for this kind of thing where I could send the men to get trained and graduate. Or quite likely I'd just hire people who graduated already.
Now I go into business. Maybe we specialize in particular kinds of crimes, and ignore the others. That would all be a business choice. The government wouldn't control which laws we enforce. They would simply define the legal limits. If we want to arrest someone, they would define the legal limits on that use of force. They would limit it to simply arresting the person, and the judgments of the crime would still be handled by the judicial systems (including juries). The records of the business would all be publicly available, and open to an inspection by agents of the government to verify that we are acting within the law. Transparency would be crucial. So no, these wouldn't be government run agencies that are simply funded through donations, but they also wouldn't be "truly separate".
The use of force by anyone in my business would be heavily controlled and limited by the government. Any violation would mean either a fine to the agency, revoking the license, or possible arrest of the employee. The business itself might even be responsible for that enforcement, meaning we don't get to choose whether to enforce those particular laws. I could see that as a condition for getting a license. Anything short of full compliance could mean losing the license, fines, possible criminal prosecution, etc. It makes sense. If the government is going to let you wield force for them, any possible abuse by an employee would make the whole enterprise appear corrupt, unless the agency actively remedied the problem. Since they are the source of it, they are responsible for it.
What happens if we go rogue? From the lack of imaginative responses so far, I assume the idea is that we'd rule uncontested and nobody would do anything. More likely, people would pay into an insurance scheme with many other enforcement agencies to guarantee that if any goes rogue, the rest get rid of them. It's just like the state police coming in and arresting the town police when they become corrupt. The government simply needs to declare an agency rogue, and the others will step in. Even if nobody paid them, they'd have an incentive, since a rogue agency would be a threat to their own citizens. More likely people would find other private schemes to deal with it.
This is a very rough example, not having ever bounced it off of anyone else for refinement. But it gives the general idea.
Now, back to some of your comment. You brought up adding an Air Force, and no increased risk of rogue branches. I wasn't talking about that at all. My point was that the group who has all the guns (the military), is not the group that makes the decisions. According to your theory, this is an impossible state of affairs. You try to avoid the contradiction by calling both groups by a single name (government), but that doesn't work. Also, I'm trying to understand if adding new branches to the military would make things worse under your theory. I would argue that it's a kind of checks and balances, where even if one branch went rogue, they'd have to deal with three other branches (plus national reserve, police, and armed populace, allies outside the country, etc., etc., etc.). It's not shocking that things didn't become more volatile.
You also complain that since we live in a world where people want drug laws, under this new system they might get more of the it. Yes, I agree. We may get laws enforced better. I also agree with Bill that people may want these laws when all it costs is a checkmark on a box, but if they are paying it themselves, they may end up deciding that it's not so bad. But I don't see the point of this argument. How is your scheme better? You use violent force to steal money from the citizenry, and pursue the same laws. If the problem is that the people making the laws aren't doing the right job, then why are you blaming it on the method of enforcement?
|
|
