[indahouweres]

Truth is, we would be fucked as a society without cops. Murders, rapes, crimes, and such would be rampant...for a while.

Yes, because the only thing keeping me from raping and murdering is the cops.

[NewYorkDoctorD]

Once it was decided the police and prosecutors have no obligation to protect the public, game over. They're not here to protect anyone anymore. They're here to protect the states interests.

The state repays their service with a paycheck, training, retirement benefits, and a writ of prohibition so loosely defined I can't tell where they end and the criminals begin.

[rowneigerie]

Not only does the good NOT outweigh the bad, but in fact the good is nearly non-existent when measured against teh bad, when we discuss cops and their behaviour.

[rikdpola]

Do not make the assumption that without cops there would be no security. Protection and safety are things that people want, and as Skirnir said, the market would provide it. More than likely private police firms would arise and individuals, households, businesses, etc. would pay a monthly premium, much like an insurance premium, for police protection. There would be more than one police firm, and competition between them would ensure that prices were low and services were well received. Meaning, if a cop from police firm A beats down a helpless man in the street, people would cancel their policies and move to police firm B which has a reputation for treating people with kindness. Rather than the power hungry, abusive, taser happy thugs in uniforms we have today, free market police would definitely be accountable to the people they serve.

Solid, do yourself a favor and read this book, For a new Liberty by Rothbard, especially chapter 12: Police, Law and the Courts.

http://library.mises.org/books/Murra...0Manifesto.pdf

Your scenario has given me a chance to think this through. The private police force would be beholden to their employers, which would be the municipality and not the citizenry. So I ask myself how this is different than the current arrangement.

Let's say a policeman beat down a helpless man now. If the people were outraged, this would be very bad politically for the policeman's employer, whether it be a mayor, city aldermen, or town selectmen. Action would be taken that would hurt the cause of the police force "competitively", in that the police chief's job status or performance review would suffer, and the individual policeman would be a risk of losing his job. These are the same market forces as it were a private enterprise. Any cover up or corruption that occurs now would offer the same financial or political dynamics and motivation if it were private. I don't see a significant difference there.

Any difference would probable arise from the union issue. But who's to say the private security force wouldn't be unionized?

I'm not denying that there is currently graft, corruption, misuse of authority, etc. I'm not convinced it wouldn't continue with a private force, because the employer remains a municipal entity (rather than a private business), which is what provides the environment for bad behavior.

[socialkiiii]

At this point I consider it safer to pass a crack head in the street than a uniform.

[rowneigerie]

The private police force would be beholden to their employers, which would be the municipality and not the citizenry.

[tretcheenia]

...Eventually neighborhood watches and locals would form their own system of protection and justice...

And thus, cops were invented.

[Filmania]

Your scenario has given me a chance to think this through. The private police force would be beholden to their employers, which would be the municipality and not the citizenry. So I ask myself how this is different than the current arrangement.

Let's say a policeman beat down a helpless man now. If the people were outraged, this would be very bad politically for the policeman's employer, whether it be a mayor, city aldermen, or town selectmen. Action would be taken that would hurt the cause of the police force "competitively", in that the police chief's job status or performance review would suffer, and the individual policeman would be a risk of losing his job. These are the same market forces as it were a private enterprise. Any cover up or corruption that occurs now would offer the same financial or political dynamics and motivation if it were private. I don't see a significant difference there.

Any difference would probable arise from the union issue. But who's to say the private security force wouldn't be unionized?

I'm not denying that there is currently graft, corruption, misuse of authority, etc. I'm not convinced it wouldn't continue with a private force, because the employer remains a municipal entity (rather than a private business), which is what provides the environment for bad behavior.

You're absolutely wrong, private police would not in the least be funded by municipalities. They would be funded by individuals, property owners, businesses, HOAs, etc., etc. In the same way as insurance policies are bought today. Your HOA might have a police insurance contract with "police firm A", so your neighborhood is protected, and you might have personal protection service in whatever quantity you want so when you're out in public if you're attacked you would receive protection.

As far as brushing under the rug the bad apples, you have to understand that if officers from "police firm A" were caught shooting into a crowd of women and children, the outlash would be from the people themselves cancelling their accounts and taking away their money. Today, their only recourse is to protest, risking themselves injury and arrest at the very same hands that caused their anger! Don't you see, the best way to put the power back into the hands of the people is for the people to DIRECTLY employ/dis-employ officers at their pleasure. If police protection was a private enterprise, those police firms that beat/torture/abuse the people would go out of business immediately!

[tretcheenia]

One thing I noticed driving in Europe is that you really do not see cops pulling cars over then approaching vehicles with (or without) guns on their hips. I am not saying cops should not be armed, but I am saying that the state (city, whatever) is putting cops lives in danger to collect revenue. I understand some traffic control is helpful, but given the dubious state of traffic "laws" to start with, having armed police pulling over people to shaft them, then have their insurance go up, etc. seems dangerous, especially as the economy grinds to a halt and people are edgy. Just an observation.

[NewYorkDoctorD]

Here's the problem with privatizing police. Replace fire brigade with police department.



The first Roman fire brigade of which we have any substantial history was created by Marcus Licinius Crassus. Marcus Licinius Crassus was born into a wealthy Roman family around the year 115 BC, and acquired an enormous fortune through (in the words of Plutarch) "fire and rapine." One of his most lucrative schemes took advantage of the fact that Rome had no fire department. Crassus filled this void by creating his own brigade—500 men strong—which rushed to burning buildings at the first cry of alarm. Upon arriving at the scene, however, the fire fighters did nothing while their employer bargained over the price of their services with the distressed property owner. If Crassus could not negotiate a satisfactory price, his men simply let the structure burn to the ground, after which he offered to purchase it for a fraction of its value.

[elektikaka]

Here's the problem with privatizing police. Replace fire brigade with police department.



The first Roman fire brigade of which we have any substantial history was created by Marcus Licinius Crassus. Marcus Licinius Crassus was born into a wealthy Roman family around the year 115 BC, and acquired an enormous fortune through (in the words of Plutarch) "fire and rapine." One of his most lucrative schemes took advantage of the fact that Rome had no fire department. Crassus filled this void by creating his own brigade—500 men strong—which rushed to burning buildings at the first cry of alarm. Upon arriving at the scene, however, the fire fighters did nothing while their employer bargained over the price of their services with the distressed property owner. If Crassus could not negotiate a satisfactory price, his men simply let the structure burn to the ground, after which he offered to purchase it for a fraction of its value.

Competition.

Plus, if your house is on fire, you're probably already fucked and the firemen are more for putting out the fire to avoid damage to your neighbors' houses.

[DurryVony]

Ungrad, also look at the history of American fire service too. In New York, it was extortion in the beginning. The fire brigades forced folks to pay them or they would let their houses burn. People had to pay for a placard to be put on their home. If the house was on fire, and the home had a placard, they would put the fire out. No placard, and the fire dept would either let the home burn, or actually go inside and loot the home. Take everything of value. Then, let it burn. It was not uncommon for two different fire brigades to show up and actually get into fights with each other over who gets to loot the home.

I tend to agree with Sparky. Magnes pointed out the 2 biggest problems with law enforcement. Privatize it, and you will still have those same problems.

I guess the question is, can you have good people doing the right thing in a corrupt environment, without them getting corrupted too.

[NewYorkDoctorD]

Competition.

Plus, if your house is on fire, you're probably already fucked and the firemen are more for putting out the fire to avoid damage to your neighbors' houses.

What if there are 2 private companies and they agree it's more profitable to let crime get out of control rather than do their job. They're still collecting your monthly "payment" by the way.

[elektikaka]

What if there are 2 private companies and they agree it's more profitable to let crime get out of control rather than do their job. They're still collecting your monthly "payment" by the way.

Not mine, I'd be the guy not subscribing to private fire services, and standing out front of my house with an AK making sure no bastard firemen came to try to set any fires.

[Filmania]

What if there are 2 private companies and they agree it's more profitable to let crime get out of control rather than do their job. They're still collecting your monthly "payment" by the way.

Then a bright investor or team of investors realizes they can make a killing by actually providing services the people want and police firm #3 is born, serving the people that the other two firms are neglecting and making tons of money in the process.

[socialkiiii]

One thing I noticed driving in Europe is that you really do not see cops pulling cars over then approaching vehicles with (or without) guns on their hips. I am not saying cops should not be armed, but I am saying that the state (city, whatever) is putting cops lives in danger to collect revenue. I understand some traffic control is helpful, but given the dubious state of traffic "laws" to start with, having armed police pulling over people to shaft them, then have their insurance go up, etc. seems dangerous, especially as the economy grinds to a halt and people are edgy. Just an observation.

It's totally ridiculous how many cops there are out on the roads. They're everywhere.
I can count on passing 5 cop cars just going into town barely 10 miles away.

[mp3 free]

I agree with JQP, it's about revenue now.

A question I have seriously asked many cop acquaintances I've had:
If there is a barrel full of snakes, mostly non-poisonous, with just a few in there that are poisonous, how would I know the difference? Why would I stick my hand in that barrel?

Basically, a few have tainted the barrel and they all know which ones are poison, we don't. To me it's now just a barrel of snakes.

[rowneigerie]

"Firefighters" watch house burn to ground, over a $75 unpaid fee - AGAIN

[DurryVony]

Then a bright investor or team of investors realizes they can make a killing by actually providing services the people want and police firm #3 is born, serving the people that the other two firms are neglecting and making tons of money in the process.

Maybe the real solution is a volunteer police department. As an old volunteer firefighter, we all joined to help the community. No pay, no corruption and just people coming together to help the community. Perhaps, if there were volunteer cops, it would attract good people more as opposed to people who want the pay and benefits, and often the corruption that comes with it. Might not work well in the cities, but could work in the smaller communities.

[rowneigerie]

Maybe the real solution is a volunteer police department.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is the answer. That's why it's under attack.