| | Jon,
Just to clarify, I do think that private police are proper, provided that they adhere to the government's standards of justified enforcement and retaliation. So, if a company wanted to hire its own private police to defend its property and pay them for their services, it should be allowed to do so. We already see this at colleges and universities, which have their own campus police.
There is nothing theoretically wrong with a private agency offering police services. In fact, competing agencies might be preferable to what we have now, provided that they adhered to the government's guidelines for law enforcement. As such, these agencies would be an arm of the government, not a competitor to it. Besides, the quality of the service would undoubtedly improve. 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. As in most big cities, the city's own police force has its hands full trying to apprehend serious criminals. 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.
But insofar as U.S. companies are prohibited from hiring their own soldiers, the U.S. armed forces as it currently exists should be willing to defend the property rights of U.S. companies doing business abroad.
- Bill
|
|
