Privatized police department.

[Wamitoria]

I must have missed them. Care to enlighten me?

Here. Remember government cops do not have to respond to any calls. A private firm would have a contractual obligation to respond. Warren vs. DC is a sad case, but worth reading about.

In Reminderville, Corporate Security outbid the Summit County Sheriff Department's offer to charge the community $180,000 per year for 45-minute response time emergency response service by offering a $90,000 contract for twice as many patrol cars and a 6-minute response time.
Another advantage that has been cited is that private police have a contractual responsibility to protect their customers.[23] In Warren v. District of Columbia, the court found that public police have no such responsibility.[24] Thus, they cannot be sued if they fail to respond to calls for help, for instance.

Save $90k per year. 39 minutes on the response time. And get twice as many patrol cars. Hands down victory. And an obligation to respond.

http://www.heartland.org/full/28610/Pri ... s_Say.html
http://www.independent.org/publications ... full&id=10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_po ... ted_States

I'm fully aware the contracting services to private businesses can be a good thing in some situations, but privatizing all of the police forces in the United States is what I'm arguing against.

[ZombieRothbard]

Here. Remember government cops do not have to respond to any calls. A private firm would have a contractual obligation to respond. Warren vs. DC is a sad case, but worth reading about.


Save $90k per year. 39 minutes on the response time. And get twice as many patrol cars. Hands down victory. And an obligation to respond.

http://www.heartland.org/full/28610/Pri ... s_Say.html
http://www.independent.org/publications ... full&id=10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_po ... ted_States

I'm fully aware the contracting services to private businesses can be a good thing in some situations, but privatizing all of the police forces in the United States is what I'm arguing against.

Why? I almost feel like instead of making a topic like this outright, I should just make a topic in defense of free markets and praxeology. Because arguing for privatization of a specific industry is worthless if your debate opponents do not accept the initial premise that there is no means for monopolization in a free market.

[The Parkus Empire]

There has been real life examples as well.

I must have missed them. Care to enlighten me?

I see Sib has that covered. I'd like also to direct you to, perhaps the most famous of all, the Pinkertons, who were effectively the FBI before there was an FBI.

[Sibirsky]

I must have missed them. Care to enlighten me?

I see Sib has that covered. I'd like also to direct to, perhaps the most famous of all, the Pinkertons, who were effectively the FBI before there was an FBI.

I had several other examples but I can't find them

[The Parkus Empire]

there is no means for monopolization in a free market.

Why not, exactly?

[The Black Forrest]

I must have missed them. Care to enlighten me?

I see Sib has that covered. I'd like also to direct to, perhaps the most famous of all, the Pinkertons, who were effectively the FBI before there was an FBI.

The FBI are strike breakers?

[Sibirsky]

No, it wasn't.

Yes, it was.

They said nothing to dispute that. The video is much more than forensics. I don't think you watched it.

The video is incorrect when it addresses forensic science. That's what I have knowledge of and that's what I'll address.

The second half of the video also stated that forensic analyst could obtain their positions with online degrees and that they were biased and beholden to the prosecutors.

And the rest of it is generally spot on.

[Wamitoria]

I'm fully aware the contracting services to private businesses can be a good thing in some situations, but privatizing all of the police forces in the United States is what I'm arguing against.

Why? I almost feel like instead of making a topic like this outright, I should just make a topic in defense of free markets and praxeology. Because arguing for privatization of a specific industry is worthless if your debate opponents do not accept the initial premise that there is no means for monopolization in a free market.

Without competition from government-run police that are obligated (in most circumstances) to protect everyone, the private police will be able to lower their standards.

[Wamitoria]

I see Sib has that covered. I'd like also to direct to, perhaps the most famous of all, the Pinkertons, who were effectively the FBI before there was an FBI.

The FBI are strike breakers?

Hoover got his name by vacuuming up commies. *nods*

[The Black Forrest]

I see Sib has that covered. I'd like also to direct to, perhaps the most famous of all, the Pinkertons, who were effectively the FBI before there was an FBI.

I had several other examples but I can't find them

Sure you do. Conveniently lost!

I hate it when that happens.

[The Parkus Empire]

The FBI are strike breakers?

Only as long as strikes are illegal.

[ZombieRothbard]

there is no means for monopolization in a free market.

Why not, exactly?

I would argue that void of government regulation, there is no mechanism in a purely free market by which you can monopolize an industry.

[Sibirsky]

Why? I almost feel like instead of making a topic like this outright, I should just make a topic in defense of free markets and praxeology. Because arguing for privatization of a specific industry is worthless if your debate opponents do not accept the initial premise that there is no means for monopolization in a free market.

Without competition from government-run police that are obligated (in most circumstances) to protect everyone, the private police will be able to lower their standards.

I'm sorry that is incorrect. Public police are not obligated to protect anyone. Private police may be obligated by their contract.

[Sibirsky]

I had several other examples but I can't find them

Sure you do. Conveniently lost!

I hate it when that happens.

Don't imply shit.

[ZombieRothbard]

Why? I almost feel like instead of making a topic like this outright, I should just make a topic in defense of free markets and praxeology. Because arguing for privatization of a specific industry is worthless if your debate opponents do not accept the initial premise that there is no means for monopolization in a free market.

Without competition from government-run police that are obligated (in most circumstances) to protect everyone, the private police will be able to lower their standards.

Why? You mean if private police forces colluded, and offered lower quality service? If you accept the insurance model, this would not be the case, since every time your police allowed a customer to be injured or killed, you lost money.

[The Black Forrest]

Why not, exactly?

I would argue that void of government regulation, there is no mechanism in a purely free market by which you can monopolize an industry.

A purely free market can't exist. People will cheat it all the time. Monopolies will rise.........

[Merikki]

I am against rent-a-cops outside of shopping centers.

Do the owners of shopping centers or their tenants not have a right to protect their property?

Imagine people had the right to come in to your house, look around, touch and play with your stuff. Sometimes they would take some of those things and give you money in exchange. Sometimes, they would take those things and run off without paying. Wouldn't you want someone to try and prevent that?

I think you misunderstood Hellsgrind. He said he was against rent-a-cops *outside* of shopping centers. Meaning rent-a-cops patrolling the streets or setting up jails. I assume he/she is pro-Shopping center's rights to hire private security. And probably a rich mansion owner's right as well. Just not otherwise-unpatrolled areas where people have to pay individually for security protection.

[The Black Forrest]

Sure you do. Conveniently lost!

I hate it when that happens.

Don't imply shit.

Don't be so sensitive. It was a joke.

[Sibirsky]

I would argue that void of government regulation, there is no mechanism in a purely free market by which you can monopolize an industry.

A purely free market can't exist. People will cheat it all the time. Monopolies will rise.........

Monopolies generally rise at the hands of the state.

[Wamitoria]

Without competition from government-run police that are obligated (in most circumstances) to protect everyone, the private police will be able to lower their standards.

Why? You mean if private police forces colluded, and offered lower quality service? If you accept the insurance model, this would not be the case, since every time your police allowed a customer to be injured or killed, you lost money.

No, I mean that it isn't always profitable to protect all of an area. Which, in turn, would force the private police to lower standards in order to end up in the black.

[ZombieRothbard]

I would argue that void of government regulation, there is no mechanism in a purely free market by which you can monopolize an industry.

A purely free market can't exist. People will cheat it all the time. Monopolies will rise.........

How exactly does one "cheat" the free market?

[The Parkus Empire]

The FBI are strike breakers?

Hoover got his name by vacuuming up commies. *nods*

Hoover did a lot to break up civil rights groups, which was easily as bad if not worse than what the Pinkertons did (and guess who was paying the Pinkertons to do it?).

[Wamitoria]

A purely free market can't exist. People will cheat it all the time. Monopolies will rise.........

Monopolies generally rise at the hands of the state.

Indeed, but oligopolies can form without the state rather easily.

[Sibirsky]

Do the owners of shopping centers or their tenants not have a right to protect their property?

Imagine people had the right to come in to your house, look around, touch and play with your stuff. Sometimes they would take some of those things and give you money in exchange. Sometimes, they would take those things and run off without paying. Wouldn't you want someone to try and prevent that?

I think you misunderstood Hellsgrind. He said he was against rent-a-cops *outside* of shopping centers. Meaning rent-a-cops patrolling the streets or setting up jails. I assume he/she is pro-Shopping center's rights to hire private security. And probably a rich mansion owner's right as well. Just not otherwise-unpatrolled areas where people have to pay individually for security protection.

Aye. Please strike that from the record.

[Wamitoria]

A purely free market can't exist. People will cheat it all the time. Monopolies will rise.........

How exactly does one "cheat" the free market?

Oligopoly + merger = monopoly.