Your stance on Police Brutality?

[Gift-of-god]

... What's stopping any industry from forming cartels?

Anti-trust laws made by the government, enforced by police working in the government. Definitely not the invisible hand or the free market.

[Sibirsky]

Well considering how I am AGAINST political contributions that wouldn't happen.

Would you make a law against it? How anarcho-capitalist of you.

How would you enforce the law? With the private police force that wants to make the contribution? What if they decided they would make more money by contributing?

What if it's already illegal? What if there are no politicians and political campaign to contribute to in the first place?

[Sibirsky]

... What's stopping any industry from forming cartels?

Anti-trust laws made by the government, enforced by police working in the government. Definitely not the invisible hand or the free market.

Ok so anti-trust laws still intact.

[Gift-of-god]

Well considering how I am AGAINST political contributions that wouldn't happen.

Would you make a law against it? How anarcho-capitalist of you.

How would you enforce the law? With the private police force that wants to make the contribution? What if they decided they would make more money by contributing?

What if it's already illegal? What if there are no politicians and political campaign to contribute to in the first place?

What if, in this fantasy world, all of the fantastic guys could be part of some fantastic society where everything would be fantastic?

Can we please try to talk about something vaguely real?

Like police brutality. If you can't show that privatising police forces would do something about police brutality, then this is just a big thread hijack.

[Saint Clair Island]

Well considering how I am AGAINST political contributions that wouldn't happen.

Even if political contributions were outlawed, the government has good reason not to do anything that would piss off large corporations. Especially not large corporations that are providing an essential service. Plus, there is such a thing as bribes -- and if all the police forces amalgamated into a single cartel, nobody would ever get arrested for accepting one from the police force.

The law gives the courts authority. Competing police forces would bring in the criminals. They would go to jail or prison if convicted. What's stopping any industry from forming cartels?

The law is toothless without a police force to enforce it. As I suggested, competing police forces would refuse to bring in criminals working for a rival company to avoid violating various agreements that could easily come into place. The jails and prisons, being run by the police force, would be owned by the same company whose employees would be sent there -- just one step short of a literal cardboard prison. Government regulation stops industry from forming cartels, and yet it's something you people want to get rid of.

[The_pantless_hero]

Malls, banks, casinos, various money carriers, gated communities and the like

Security guards are not police.

Side note: And seriously, Evony ads need to be canceled. I was starting to wonder why there were porn ads here.

Banks and casino personnel are armed. Not much difference between armed security and police.

Listen, if carrying a gun makes you a private police force, the US is brimming with private police forces. Most of which are criminals.

[Sibirsky]

What if, in this fantasy world, all of the fantastic guys could be part of some fantastic society where everything would be fantastic?

Can we please try to talk about something vaguely real?

Like police brutality. If you can't show that privatising police forces would do something about police brutality, then this is just a big thread hijack.

As I previously stated, it is my belief that by privatizing the police force, the number of cases of police brutality and use of excessive force would drop.

[Sibirsky]

Listen, if carrying a gun makes you a private police force, the US is brimming with private police forces. Most of which are criminals.

Casino security have the authority to use their weapons if need be. A regular, gun carrying citizen does not.

[Othyl]

Well, ultimate response why cartels wouldn't form? In any truly free market society, the people hold the ultimate power. People get fed up with the cartel? They'd stop paying them. Cartel hires thugs to rob them, people could buy a gun and fight the thugs, or maybe wealthy individuals could buy out the thugs. Or maybe go to the next town over, sign some contracts with the cartel there, and have that cartel come in and get rid of the original one, but now the people have contracts to prevent the same situation from occurring again. If they just tear up the contracts, repeat the process. Eventually the cost of doing business that way won't keep up with the revenue and they'll change practices. Of course, all of this is assuming the worst of people.

[Baycosa]

As I previously stated, it is my belief that by privatizing the police force, the number of cases of police brutality and use of excessive force would drop.

Could you count so called "bounty hunters" as a private police force? Private citizens employed by court to bring in fugitives?

[Saint Clair Island]

What if, in this fantasy world, all of the fantastic guys could be part of some fantastic society where everything would be fantastic?

Can we please try to talk about something vaguely real?

Like police brutality. If you can't show that privatising police forces would do something about police brutality, then this is just a big thread hijack.

As I previously stated, it is my belief that by privatizing the police force, the number of cases of police brutality and use of excessive force would drop.

And on what is your belief based? Cops are cops, whether they work for the NYPD or Robbie's Bobbies Ltd. -- the same defenses the NYPD uses to get off lightly, the private cops can. The solution to minimizing police brutality won't be something simple like that.

[Gift-of-god]

As I previously stated, it is my belief that by privatizing the police force, the number of cases of police brutality and use of excessive force would drop.

Well, unless you have some evidence to support your belief, it has as much weight as my belief that handing out lollipops to cops will reduce police brutality.

Other measures (such as independent investigation committess that look into allegations of police brutality, and police efforts at integration with ethnic communities) seem to work better than privatisation and lollipops.

[Sibirsky]

As I previously stated, it is my belief that by privatizing the police force, the number of cases of police brutality and use of excessive force would drop.

Could you count so called "bounty hunters" as a private police force? Private citizens employed by court to bring in fugitives?

Sure.

[Baycosa]

Sure.

Well there you have it, private police exist, and it seems to do a good job.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

As I previously stated, it is my belief that by privatizing the police force, the number of cases of police brutality and use of excessive force would drop.

Well, unless you have some evidence to support your belief, it has as much weight as my belief that handing out lollipops to cops will reduce police brutality.Other measures (such as independent investigation committess that look into allegations of police brutality, and police efforts at integration with ethnic communities) seem to work better than privatisation and lollipops.

That seems like a better idea than privatisation.

[Saint Clair Island]

Well, ultimate response why cartels wouldn't form? In any truly free market society, the people hold the ultimate power. People get fed up with the cartel? They'd stop paying them. Cartel hires thugs to rob them, people could buy a gun and fight the thugs, or maybe wealthy individuals could buy out the thugs.

You seem to have the mistaken impression that people are activists. In reality only about five percent of people would do that -- perhaps less. The rest would just live in the hope that the situation would eventually improve and the government/X rival corporation/God would save them and they'd be fine as long as they kept their heads down and stayed out of trouble. Many more would insist that the police were just doing their jobs and if you don't want to get beaten up you should just stay out of their way. Just look at this thread for an example.

Or maybe go to the next town over, sign some contracts with the cartel there, and have that cartel come in and get rid of the original one, but now the people have contracts to prevent the same situation from occurring again. If they just tear up the contracts, repeat the process. Eventually the cost of doing business that way won't keep up with the revenue and they'll change practices. Of course, all of this is assuming the worst of people.

Actually, it attributes a lot more to people than people usually demonstrate. People would give up a good deal sooner than the cartels would. Besides, who said any rival cartel would ever show up? A sufficiently large cartel would have control over the entire nation, and if you went to (say) Canada and tried to get the police there to come down and kick out the Americans, they'd just laugh at you. Same for most other countries.

[Sibirsky]

I already stated what it's based on. To summarize, government police get off easy in cases of police brutality and abuse their power far too often. Private police forces would be subject to laws like regular citizens.

There was a case recently in Florida, a girl called the cops because her brother locked himself in his room and was threatening HIMSELF. The cops came in, broke down the door to his room and shot him. He died. The cops have not gone to trial yet, this is a very recent case. Whatever their punishment is, it would be much more severe if they were employees of a private security agency, or whatever you want to call it.

[Dyakovo]

What if, in this fantasy world, all of the fantastic guys could be part of some fantastic society where everything would be fantastic?

Can we please try to talk about something vaguely real?

Like police brutality. If you can't show that privatising police forces would do something about police brutality, then this is just a big thread hijack.

As I previously stated, it is my belief that by privatizing the police force, the number of cases of police brutality and use of excessive force would drop.

Because you have a rather unreasonable world view.

Police brutality happens in part due to the stress of the job, a private police force isn't going to change that.

It also happens in part because some people who are attracted to the job are dicks and let the power go to their head. This also wouldn't be changed by a private police force.

The only thing that would change is that the bosses of a private police force main goal would be to make money.

[Dyakovo]

Listen, if carrying a gun makes you a private police force, the US is brimming with private police forces. Most of which are criminals.

Casino security have the authority to use their weapons if need be. A regular, gun carrying citizen does not.

Umm, yes, they do.

[Sibirsky]

What if, in this fantasy world, all of the fantastic guys could be part of some fantastic society where everything would be fantastic?

Can we please try to talk about something vaguely real?

Like police brutality. If you can't show that privatising police forces would do something about police brutality, then this is just a big thread hijack.

As I previously stated, it is my belief that by privatizing the police force, the number of cases of police brutality and use of excessive force would drop.

Because you have a rather unreasonable world view.

Police brutality happens in part due to the stress of the job, a private police force isn't going to change that.

It also happens in part because some people who are attracted to the job are dicks and let the power go to their head. This also wouldn't be changed by a private police force.

The only thing that would change is that the bosses of a private police force main goal would be to make money.

In a private police force, using force would not be financially advantegeous and that's why authoritarian dicks would be less likely to apply for such jobs.

[Saint Clair Island]

I already stated what it's based on. To summarize, government police get off easy in cases of police brutality and abuse their power far too often. Private police forces would be subject to laws like regular citizens.

There was a case recently in Florida, a girl called the cops because her brother locked himself in his room and was threatening HIMSELF. The cops came in, broke down the door to his room and shot him. He died. The cops have not gone to trial yet, this is a very recent case. Whatever their punishment is, it would be much more severe if they were employees of a private security agency, or whatever you want to call it.

And why? Why would their punishment be more severe if they were employees of a private security force?

And are policemen not "regular citizens"? Are they somehow above the law? If so, where does it say this?

In a private police force, using force would not be financially advantegeous and that's why authoritarian dicks would be less likely to apply for such jobs.

Why wouldn't it be financially advantageous? People pay you to investigate, say, a robbery. If you shoot the robber 20 times to kill him after he agrees to go peacefully, you still get paid, and just like government police you can get acquitted if you convince a judge it was self-defense or something -- and make the guy suing you pay your legal fees, since you work for a person (i.e. a corporation) instead of the government. Where's the financial disadvantage?

[Othyl]

Well, ultimate response why cartels wouldn't form? In any truly free market society, the people hold the ultimate power. People get fed up with the cartel? They'd stop paying them. Cartel hires thugs to rob them, people could buy a gun and fight the thugs, or maybe wealthy individuals could buy out the thugs.

You seem to have the mistaken impression that people are activists. In reality only about five percent of people would do that -- perhaps less. The rest would just live in the hope that the situation would eventually improve and the government/X rival corporation/God would save them and they'd be fine as long as they kept their heads down and stayed out of trouble. Many more would insist that the police were just doing their jobs and if you don't want to get beaten up you should just stay out of their way. Just look at this thread for an example.

Or maybe go to the next town over, sign some contracts with the cartel there, and have that cartel come in and get rid of the original one, but now the people have contracts to prevent the same situation from occurring again. If they just tear up the contracts, repeat the process. Eventually the cost of doing business that way won't keep up with the revenue and they'll change practices. Of course, all of this is assuming the worst of people.

Actually, it attributes a lot more to people than people usually demonstrate. People would give up a good deal sooner than the cartels would. Besides, who said any rival cartel would ever show up? A sufficiently large cartel would have control over the entire nation, and if you went to (say) Canada and tried to get the police there to come down and kick out the Americans, they'd just laugh at you. Same for most other countries.

Well, in my mind, you don't just privatize the police. The police would be one of the later things to privatize. Before that you'd be doing stuff like privatizing education and building on that 'informed consumer' idea that true capitalism requires. Through such actions as that, you would be lowering the impact of the sheep and building up a culture of action once again so that the people in a position to act, would be more inclined to. Just because society is a mass of pointless slobs now, doesn't mean they always have been or always will be. The world doesn't improve by assuming that no one will do anything different.

However, I never advocated completely eliminating the government, it should just take a more observational role in my opinion. They'd enforce the anti-trust laws with security firms. Balance out the immediate benefits of starting up a cartel, or getting government funding and support.

[Baycosa]

Listen, if carrying a gun makes you a private police force, the US is brimming with private police forces. Most of which are criminals.

Casino security have the authority to use their weapons if need be. A regular, gun carrying citizen does not.

Umm, yes, they do.

Yep when defending their homes or lives, it falls under the category "self defense".

[Sibirsky]

I already stated what it's based on. To summarize, government police get off easy in cases of police brutality and abuse their power far too often. Private police forces would be subject to laws like regular citizens.

There was a case recently in Florida, a girl called the cops because her brother locked himself in his room and was threatening HIMSELF. The cops came in, broke down the door to his room and shot him. He died. The cops have not gone to trial yet, this is a very recent case. Whatever their punishment is, it would be much more severe if they were employees of a private security agency, or whatever you want to call it.

And why? Why would their punishment be more severe if they were employees of a private security force?

And are policemen not "regular citizens"? Are they somehow above the law? If so, where does it say this?

In a private police force, using force would not be financially advantegeous and that's why authoritarian dicks would be less likely to apply for such jobs.

Why wouldn't it be financially advantageous? People pay you to investigate, say, a robbery. If you shoot the robber 20 times to kill him after he agrees to go peacefully, you still get paid, and just like government police you can get acquitted if you convince a judge it was self-defense or something -- and make the guy suing you pay your legal fees, since you work for a person (i.e. a corporation) instead of the government. Where's the financial disadvantage?

They will not get convicted of murder. They will get convicted of manslaughter or some other lesser offense.

Civil suits, as well as criminal suits would make the cost of police brutality too high.

[Othyl]

Why wouldn't it be financially advantageous? People pay you to investigate, say, a robbery. If you shoot the robber 20 times to kill him after he agrees to go peacefully, you still get paid, and just like government police you can get acquitted if you convince a judge it was self-defense or something -- and make the guy suing you pay your legal fees, since you work for a person (i.e. a corporation) instead of the government. Where's the financial disadvantage?

It's not economical because they'd bring the suit against the police. The police would have to cut into their profit margins. Just because you used excessive force and are now being sued doesn't mean that you can just foot the bill on whoever hired you, they'd say no. You were paid for the robbery, no one is going to pay your legal fees, or damages should you lose.