PDA

View Full Version : Private police / police insurance




Elwar
02-16-2011, 10:32 AM
I was trying to figure out how a completely privatized community would work out and I was considering the way that police would be paid.

I'm already figuring the fire department can be paid by charging to put out the fire and providing fire insurance which would cover the costs.

I was wondering if that might be a good way to go for police service. If you get robbed or something happens where you need police service, you pay for their service (then try to get the money back from the criminal through the court system).

This sounds like a pretty crappy way of doing things. I can't imagine a woman getting raped, the police come out to help and then give her a bill on top of it. But that's pretty much how it works for a fire department that gives you a bill after your house burned up.

Other than getting a bill, if you were to have the option of buying police insurance then it wouldn't be so bad when you call the cops. You could get lower rates for setting up good security in your home or living in a safe neighborhood, or by carrying a gun, etc.

This would also allow for several police companies. You can always have a few choices in your cell phone for different situations based on what kind of police you prefer.

Any thoughts on this type of setup?

pcosmar
02-16-2011, 10:36 AM
I was trying to figure out how a completely privatized community would work out and I was considering the way that police would be paid.

I'm already figuring the fire department can be paid by charging to put out the fire and providing fire insurance which would cover the costs.

I was wondering if that might be a good way to go for police service. If you get robbed or something happens where you need police service, you pay for their service (then try to get the money back from the criminal through the court system).

This sounds like a pretty crappy way of doing things. I can't imagine a woman getting raped, the police come out to help and then give her a bill on top of it. But that's pretty much how it works for a fire department that gives you a bill after your house burned up.

Other than getting a bill, if you were to have the option of buying police insurance then it wouldn't be so bad when you call the cops. You could get lower rates for setting up good security in your home or living in a safe neighborhood, or by carrying a gun, etc.

This would also allow for several police companies. You can always have a few choices in your cell phone for different situations based on what kind of police you prefer.

Any thoughts on this type of setup?

Why would you need or want police?
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

please rethink the concept.

invisible
02-16-2011, 10:44 AM
Police insurance? I'd love to buy insurance like that! Just imagine, the police violate your rights and you get a lawyer to defend you and then sue their asses. Where do I sign up?

silverhandorder
02-16-2011, 10:45 AM
Ofcourse there should be police. What are you going to do when crime happens? Go vigilante on the criminal? What if he is stronger? You going to need to pay some one to protect you.

The way I see it is the cops could be hired by someone other then the victim. Malls hire security, so could neighborhoods and public places that are covered by the police force now. This should take care of any static patrol.

Investigators would probably function exactly like the private investigators now. The victim would go to one to help him find the criminal. Then go to court and have bounty hunters take the guy down.

So all in all we would have to assess if the police now achieve what we think it achieves. I certainly do not patrols cover much area now. Most crimes where police muscle is needed are not a big expense. Patrolling is what costs most money.

pcosmar
02-16-2011, 11:00 AM
Ofcourse there should be police. What are you going to do when crime happens? Go vigilante on the criminal? What if he is stronger? You going to need to pay some one to protect you.


vigilant
: alertly watchful especially to avoid danger

You say it like it's a bad thing. :confused:

And the Second Amendment would allow you to be armed
What is wrong with an ELECTED Sheriff and neighborhood watches (militia)

Please read the supporting material at the link. And rethink the very concept of police.
It is contrary to Liberty.

silverhandorder
02-16-2011, 11:02 AM
I don't think you can stop some one from paying some one else to go beat up a bad guy. It is that simple. Once that happens you will have professional business form.

Militias and sherifs are good but they are not going to meet the needs of a population. You going to need professionals. I am not saying to give monopoly to security agencies or give them special rights.

olehounddog
02-16-2011, 11:04 AM
Bounty hunters? I don't think they need a warrant. Would that be good for the people? idk

pcosmar
02-16-2011, 11:10 AM
I don't think you can stop some one from paying some one else to go beat up a bad guy. It is that simple. Once that happens you will have professional business form.
There have been such private armies before and the abuses are documented.
A well known example is The firebombing of Jessie James Family and home. This drove him into a war with the railroads.


Militias and sherifs are good but they are not going to meet the needs of a population. You going to need professionals. I am not saying to give monopoly to security agencies or give them special rights.

Professionals, is that a joke?
The needs of the population are personal responsibility. It is abdicating responsibility that gave rise to the police state.

hazek
02-16-2011, 11:14 AM
In a true an cap society I think the "police" would operate completely and entirely different then they do right now and it would have a lot more to do with preventative actions instead of reactive actions.

silverhandorder
02-16-2011, 11:16 AM
The railroad police I heard had the best reputation out of any police forces in US and it was completely private.

When I say professionals I mean division of labor. Unless you still make your own chairs you can see how it is stupid to say that every individuals should be their own police men. Some individuals will pay others to do this for them.

pcosmar
02-16-2011, 11:17 AM
In a true an cap society I think the "police" would operate completely and entirely different then they do right now and it would have a lot more to do with preventative actions instead of reactive actions.

Preventative actions?
You mean Pre-Crime. How would that work exactly?

Wesker1982
02-16-2011, 11:21 AM
Other than getting a bill, if you were to have the option of buying police insurance then it wouldn't be so bad when you call the cops. You could get lower rates for setting up good security in your home or living in a safe neighborhood, or by carrying a gun, etc.

This would also allow for several police companies. You can always have a few choices in your cell phone for different situations based on what kind of police you prefer.

Any thoughts on this type of setup?

I think you got it.

Also, I would imagine protection would probably be provided by the property owner. So if you aren't constantly walking around with a bodyguard, there is a good chance whatever street or business you are on has private protection provided in order to make their customers feel safe.

INB4 argument from apocalypse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqo7XMkbtEk

pcosmar
02-16-2011, 11:27 AM
The railroad police I heard had the best reputation out of any police forces in US and it was completely private.

When I say professionals I mean division of labor. Unless you still make your own chairs you can see how it is stupid to say that every individuals should be their own police men. Some individuals will pay others to do this for them.

Railroad police had a reputation. And that depends entirely on who was abused and who benefited from that abuse.

Personal responsibility is not a divided labor. Personal security is a personal responsibility. If you wish to hire a personal Bodyguard that is your choice, but you have no right to interfere with anyone else rights. Nor to hire someone to do it for you.

Please read the link I posted,, It is long, but quite worthwhile.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Elwar
02-16-2011, 11:39 AM
The way I see it is the cops could be hired by someone other then the victim. Malls hire security, so could neighborhoods and public places that are covered by the police force now. This should take care of any static patrol.


Mall cops or having businesses hire cops is ok but what if it is the businesses that are committing the crime? And combining money for security tends to punish those who's businesses or homes are safe while rewarding those who leave themselves open to crime.

And under this model there's no reason to say that you have to call the police. It's a service that you can use like any other.

teacherone
02-16-2011, 11:41 AM
but who would you call to take notes after your house is broken into?

Elwar
02-16-2011, 11:41 AM
Police insurance? I'd love to buy insurance like that! Just imagine, the police violate your rights and you get a lawyer to defend you and then sue their asses. Where do I sign up?

With competing police agencies you could call one police agency to come and arrest the others...

Plus, with competition, the ones that violate people's rights would go out of business quickly.

hazek
02-16-2011, 11:42 AM
Preventative actions?
You mean Pre-Crime. How would that work exactly?

Are you really asking me how crime prevention works? I can't tell if you are serious or not.

Wesker1982
02-16-2011, 11:46 AM
but what if it is the businesses that are committing the crime?

They won't be a business for long.

pcosmar
02-16-2011, 11:50 AM
Are you really asking me how crime prevention works? I can't tell if you are serious or not.

I am serious. How do you prevent a murder from happening? unless you are right there at that moment to stop the murderer.

how do you prevent one person from assaulting another?

It is an honest and serious question. Unless your can actually predict the future and be omnipresent,,, you can't.

pcosmar
02-16-2011, 11:53 AM
They won't be a business for long.

Why, as far as I know,,many still are after a hundred years.

Wesker1982
02-16-2011, 11:57 AM
Why, as far as I know,,many still are after a hundred years.

Corporatism

teacherone
02-16-2011, 11:57 AM
I am serious. How do you prevent a murder from happening? unless you are right there at that moment to stop the murderer.

how do you prevent one person from assaulting another?

It is an honest and serious question. Unless your can actually predict the future and be omnipresent,,, you can't.

i've been thinking about his a lot and i believe you are right. the police very rarely stop a crime in progress. they are merely glorified note-takers who like to kick some ass on teenagers because they're so excited to finally have caught one in the act.

people need the means to protect themselves. communities need to look out for each other.

unfortunately everyone is under the false impression that they are being protected by the boys in blue while they sleep.

people have given up the means to defend themselves and have lost the knowledge altogether.

this is why you rarely see good samaritans but often see witnesses filming with their smart phone.

pcosmar
02-16-2011, 12:06 PM
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

LAW ENFORCEMENT AS A UNIVERSAL DUTY

Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen.32 Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand."33 Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one,34 and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department.35 The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed.36

Laws in virtually every state still require citizens to aid in capturing escaped prisoners, arresting criminal suspects, and executing legal process. The duty of citizens to enforce the law was and is a constitutional one. Many early state constitutions purported to bind citizens into a universal obligation to perform law enforcement functions, yet evinced no mention of any state power to carry out those same functions.37 But the law enforcement duties of the citizenry are now a long-forgotten remnant of the Framers' era.

hazek
02-16-2011, 12:06 PM
I am serious. How do you prevent a murder from happening? unless you are right there at that moment to stop the murderer.

how do you prevent one person from assaulting another?

It is an honest and serious question. Unless your can actually predict the future and be omnipresent,,, you can't.

Ok, I didn't realize this puzzled you.

Well of course you have a point. Once the conditions for a murder are there it's too late to try and predict the future of when exactly it's going to happen, as it is for any other crime. What "police" in an cap society would do though (to minimize their costs and max their profits) is they'll figure out which socio-economic conditions usually are the cause for crime. Whether it's poverty or whether it's bigotry or whatever else sets the conditions for someone violating someones rights and they'd actively work to prevent said conditions. No need to predict the future of a crime that can't happen.

On the other hand if it's not possible to prevent the conditions you still have alarms, neighborhood watch and a well armed society that can help with deterring criminals from striking.

So as you can see, there's a lot that can be done. It's practically the same with your health where if you eat bad, don't exercise and don't rest enough it's to late to think about preventing a sickness and trying to figure out when exactly it's going to happen. But you sure can figure out what helps your health and what hurts and you can actively live a style where it's going to be less likely that you get sick. And then you do regular check ups with your doctor so you can catch a disease in it's early stage to further help the health of your body.

pcosmar
02-16-2011, 12:11 PM
Ok, I didn't realize this puzzled you.

What "police" in an cap society would do though (to minimize their costs and max their profits)
.

I don't want profits at the expense of Liberty.
This is why I oppose the Very Concept of police.

They are unnecessary and contrary to Liberty.

hazek
02-16-2011, 12:16 PM
I don't want profits at the expense of Liberty.
This is why I oppose the Very Concept of police.

They are unnecessary and contrary to Liberty.

Why are you so stubborn? Please swallow your ego and listen.

First of all I put the word police in "" because it would actually just be a security firm. It wouldn't be the only one for that matter and it would have to compete with a market.
Second of all if it didn't guarantee liberty and effectiveness and no one was forced to sign a contract with them they'd soon go bankrupt because of the competition.


Please stop thinking in the paradigm we're in right now where there's a central force that keeps a monopoly on certain services and expand your imagination on how it could work in a real an cap society.

Wesker1982
02-16-2011, 12:31 PM
I don't want profits at the expense of Liberty.


Profits would be made by defending liberty. Only the federal government, through the coercion of taxation, can wage billion dollar "wars" on non-crimes like prostitution and drug use. Any private agency would have to dramatically increase their rates to wage wars of aggression, they would lose business to the non-aggressive agencies.

Also, as Rothbard points out, these private agencies would have no inherent sense of legitimacy. A PDA busting down someone's door for smoking marijuana would be seen as no different than private citizen doing the same thing.

pcosmar
02-16-2011, 12:32 PM
Why are you so stubborn? Please swallow your ego and listen.

First of all I put the word police in "" because it would actually just be a security firm. It wouldn't be the only one for that matter and it would have to compete with a market.
Second of all if it didn't guarantee liberty and effectiveness and no one was forced to sign a contract with them they'd soon go bankrupt because of the competition.


Please stop thinking in the paradigm we're in right now where there's a central force that keeps a monopoly on certain services and expand your imagination on how it could work in a real an cap society.

Stubborn? Perhaps.
but I am not an anarchist. An-cap, or otherwise.
I am a capitalist by practicality. But not at all anarchist (despite being accused of such)
I do not see any benefit in force for profit, and contrary to a liberty concept.
I see no place in a free society for police, whether state or private. I find the very concept of police abhorrent.

fisharmor
02-16-2011, 12:36 PM
Police exist for the following reasons, which are listed in increasing order of the cops' perceived importance.

-As glorified garbage men, to document crime scenes after the fact, whereupon they will either do absolutely nothing, or abduct an individual who had nothing to do with it

-To catch teenagers in the act of riding skateboards

-To act as revenue agents of the state, collecting fines for safe behavior like speeding

-Finally, the most important thing cops do:
Protect each other at all costs.


So, don't know about you all, but the first item up there is the only thing that they do that I could see myself paying money for in the first place (minus the fucking it up part, that is).
If all they do that adds value to society is document crime scenes, then hell, give me back my portion of the money they take from me to pay for the cops, and I'll add it to my homeowner's insurance to cover a PI when needed, and have enough left over to cover Christmas.


ETA: I'm not assuming that we need the same paradigm as pcosmar was accused of.
I am looking at it from this angle:
If that is what cops do (and it is ALL that they do), then it stands to reason that the free market would not require of private cops more than it requires of public cops.

Krugerrand
02-16-2011, 12:37 PM
How much would they charge to shoot your dog when it barks at them?

Wesker1982
02-16-2011, 12:41 PM
Stubborn? Perhaps.
but I am not an anarchist. An-cap, or otherwise.
I am a capitalist by practicality. But not at all anarchist (despite being accused of such)
I do not see any benefit in force for profit, and contrary to a liberty concept.
I see no place in a free society for police, whether state or private. I find the very concept of police abhorrent.

How are you not an anarchist? Most minarchists stay minarchists because they don't understand how protection could be provided without the state. So since you don't believe we should have any sort of police, where are you drawing the line between statist and anarchist?


I do not see any benefit in force for profit, and contrary to a liberty concept.

How is defensive force contrary to liberty? If I pay someone from a protection agency to sit outside of my house, who's liberty am I violating? If I pay a PDA to defend my store from aggression, who's liberty am I violating? If I pay a PDA to defend my street from aggression, who's liberty am I violating?

silverhandorder
02-16-2011, 12:45 PM
You need to stop criminals. Militia is police we are simply discussing how it will be done. You want police work to be done by only militias. We want it done by anyone that wants to.

pcosmar
02-16-2011, 12:50 PM
How are you not an anarchist? Most minarchists stay minarchists because they don't understand how protection could be provided without the state. So since you don't believe we should have any sort of police, where are you drawing the line between statist and anarchist?



How is defensive force contrary to liberty? If I pay someone from a protection agency to sit outside of my house, who's liberty am I violating? If I pay a PDA to defend my store from aggression, who's liberty am I violating? If I pay a PDA to defend my street from aggression, who's liberty am I violating?

Are you refusing to read what I have posted of are you simply ignoring it?

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

LAW ENFORCEMENT AS A UNIVERSAL DUTY

Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen.32 Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand."33 Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one,34 and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department.35 The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed.36

Laws in virtually every state still require citizens to aid in capturing escaped prisoners, arresting criminal suspects, and executing legal process. The duty of citizens to enforce the law was and is a constitutional one. Many early state constitutions purported to bind citizens into a universal obligation to perform law enforcement functions, yet evinced no mention of any state power to carry out those same functions.37 But the law enforcement duties of the citizenry are now a long-forgotten remnant of the Framers' era.

silverhandorder
02-16-2011, 12:51 PM
We are refusing to accept this universal duty. Sorry i want to pay people i trust for police work.

pcosmar
02-16-2011, 12:52 PM
We are refusing to accept this universal duty. Sorry i want to pay people i trust for police work.

That is how we got where we are today.

Elwar
02-16-2011, 12:55 PM
Having no police force is all well and good, but I was thinking of a place where not only are citizens protected but also those visiting.

I wouldn't exactly go visiting Somalia or Egypt right now...my main concern being my safety.

When I go on vacation in the Carribean I don't tend to need to carry a gun. Sure there are crimes but there would be more crimes on travelers if police weren't around.

silverhandorder
02-16-2011, 12:56 PM
No that is not true, we got here today by growing big government. We granted monopoly on law enforcement to the state. What I am suggesting is the exact opposite.

I don't view this duty any differently then my duty to make my own chairs.

fisharmor
02-16-2011, 01:00 PM
We are refusing to accept this universal duty. Sorry i want to pay people i trust for police work.

I also refuse universal duty for the sole reason that I am compelled.
The word for this is involuntary servitude.
Any aid I grant is a result of divine mandate - it has nothing to do with the system.

However I disagree with silverhandorder as well. I not only refuse to accept universal duty, I also do not wish to pay for police work.
I will happily pay for detective work when needed.
I will never need the police work. Not ever.
Should I somehow managed not to be burdened with paying for unwanted police work, paying for the detective work the one time I'll ever need it will be much easier.
I need no "protection" service other than that which I have already arranged to carry out myself with my family.

silverhandorder
02-16-2011, 01:05 PM
Good for you fisharmor.

Wesker1982
02-16-2011, 01:05 PM
Are you refusing to read what I have posted of are you simply ignoring it?



32 Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned.

Who would enforced this?


when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed.

Who would enforce this?


Many early state constitutions purported to bind citizens into a universal obligation to perform law enforcement functions

Who would enforce this?


when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department.

Oh. I thought you were against having law enforcement officers? :confused:

I also think its important for you to make yourself clear on this:


How is defensive force contrary to liberty? If I pay someone from a protection agency to sit outside of my house, who's liberty am I violating? If I pay a PDA to defend my store from aggression, who's liberty am I violating? If I pay a PDA to defend my street from aggression, who's liberty am I violating?

pcosmar
02-16-2011, 01:21 PM
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

CONCLUSION

The United States of America was founded without professional police. Its earliest traditions and founding documents evidenced no contemplation that the power of the state would be implemented by omnipresent police forces. On the contrary, America's constitutional Framers expressed hostility and contempt for the standing armies of the late eighteenth century, which functioned as law enforcement units in American cities. The advent of modern policing has greatly altered the balance of power between the citizen and the state in a way that would have been seen as constitutionally invalid by the Framers. The implications of this altered balance of power are far-reaching, and should invite consideration by judges and legislators who concern themselves with constitutional questions.

The whole work is well worth the time to study.

pcosmar
02-16-2011, 01:23 PM
Who would enforced this?



Who would enforce this?



Who would enforce this?




Conscience, common decency, respect for ones fellow man.
Personal responsibility.

Wesker1982
02-16-2011, 02:08 PM
Conscience, common decency, respect for ones fellow man.
Personal responsibility.

If you have faith that the majority of people will live by these principles, then it would logically follow that you would conclude that a corrupt or criminal private defense agency would not receive sufficient funding.

mediahasyou
02-16-2011, 02:12 PM
I can't imagine a woman getting raped, the police come out to help and then give her a bill on top of it. But that's pretty much how it works for a fire department that gives you a bill after your house burned up.

If you had the right of way and you're car is damaged by another car and if you are able to obtain the other person's identity, you send the bill to them.

If you were raped and if you are able to obtain the other person's identity, you send the bill to them.

Elwar
02-16-2011, 02:15 PM
If you had the right of way and you're car is damaged by another car and if you are able to obtain the other person's identity, you send the bill to them.

If you were raped and if you are able to obtain the other person's identity, you send the bill to them.

There's the small part about proof...but ya, essentially that's how it would work. Along with a loser pays court system.

AFPVet
02-16-2011, 02:20 PM
I have a better idea... how about volunteer law enforcement? Oh wait, we already have that... Sheriff's Reserve :) No one should pay for police protection. Citizens should police themselves or volunteer for law enforcement duties.

RyanRSheets
02-16-2011, 02:57 PM
Nothing can be done overnight. One of the reasons we have so much crime is how easy and lucrative it is to be a criminal. Drug dealing is a natural trade for thugs. Take every field you can from them, they'll be forced to find something profitable that is still a crime, or they'll be forced into a legitimate lifestyle. Theft will become the natural field for determined thugs and there may be more legitimate crime, but it will not take long for people to start taking care of their property. At this point, the police can be phased out.

osan
02-16-2011, 02:59 PM
I was trying to figure out how a completely privatized community would work out and I was considering the way that police would be paid.

Your question presupposes that there would be police in the first place.


I'm already figuring the fire department can be paid by charging to put out the fire and providing fire insurance which would cover the costs.Or you provide for your own insurance.

Charging to put out a fire is not likely to provide sufficient revenues to support a full time department - even a skeleton crew with volunteers. Having at least some full time FD staff is probably desirable, assuming that people want them to arrive sometime before the house and everything in it is destroyed.


I was wondering if that might be a good way to go for police service.I would have no police service at all. I would forbid it, in fact. County sheriffs or the equivalent would be more than enough. Private investigation companies could perhaps be hired to do forensic work - no power to arrest beyond that of any other citizen.

But what of prosecution and courts? I am not in favor of privatizing such affairs unless they are held on very short leashes and ANY violation of a citizens rights were met with swift and grim punishments. Private courts... almost an oxymoron, as is private justice system.


If you get robbed or something happens where you need police service, you pay for their service (then try to get the money back from the criminal through the court system).Sounds shitty.


This sounds like a pretty crappy way of doing things. I can't imagine a woman getting raped, the police come out to help and then give her a bill on top of it. But that's pretty much how it works for a fire department that gives you a bill after your house burned up.Agreed. Some functions ought not be privatized at all. As I have written many times before, the question of private/public governing functions is not the fundamental issue in question where the question of liberty is under discussion. The salient issues are those of boundaries (limits) and accountability. Police should not exist, IMO. We have sheriffs and I am sure there are plenty of volunteers to tap into when a child goes missing.


Other than getting a bill, if you were to have the option of buying police insurance then it wouldn't be so bad when you call the cops. You could get lower rates for setting up good security in your home or living in a safe neighborhood, or by carrying a gun, etc.Police insurance would be hella costly, especially in peaceful places because there is not enough actual crime (vs. fabricated crime, like drinking a beer on the corner) to support such an organization. The more peaceful the community becomes, the less cops are needed. Cops won't like it a bit. I hold precious small doubt we would be under a continuous assault by lobbying organizations to declare sneezing in public w/o a license a felony so the police could justify their positions and salaries. No thank you. I will protect myself.


This would also allow for several police companies. You can always have a few choices in your cell phone for different situations based on what kind of police you prefer.So? Best to have none at all.


Any thoughts on this type of setup?Yes - it is crap.

osan
02-16-2011, 03:03 PM
If you were raped and if you are able to obtain the other person's identity, you send the bill to them.

Are you smioking meth? Someone attempts to rape me, I'm shooting their ass deader'n stone.

Jesus fucking christ... you cannot be serious.

RyanRSheets
02-16-2011, 03:03 PM
As for the question of insurance, there are plenty of businesses with an interest in the protection of life and property. A life insurance company would have an interest in making sure its customers weren't killed, and an employer has an interest in making sure its employees are insured in such a way. A home insurance company would have an interest in making sure a home was secured, and the bank that made the loan for the home would have an interest in making sure the home was insured, and the same would go for cars. All businesses have an interest in providing a secure environment for their customers and preventing theft. People have an interest in taking care of themselves. There is more than enough free-market interest to go around.

osan
02-16-2011, 03:04 PM
There's the small part about proof...but ya, essentially that's how it would work. Along with a loser pays court system.

And what about a lengthy prison term? Or have we gone completely off the rails now in believing there should be no prisons?

pcosmar
02-16-2011, 03:07 PM
And what about a lengthy prison term? Or have we gone completely off the rails now in believing there should be no prisons?

Apparently the rich will be able to buy their way out. Just as the wealthy owning a private force to harass their poorer neighbors.

RyanRSheets
02-16-2011, 03:16 PM
And what about a lengthy prison term? Or have we gone completely off the rails now in believing there should be no prisons?

Not to say that I am against all prisons, but particularly with today's technology, I think we could find a better way to handle criminals than to lock them in a cage. It doesn't exactly solve anything, aside from the potential for a threat, to imprison someone. A tweaked version of house arrest could allow the person to continue to participate in society while removing the threat. Having them relocate to an area near other convicts would make surveillance a pretty affordable option. It would be quite simple to have a system that incapacitates or tranquilizes the criminal if they overstep their bounds. There's going to be plenty of cases where this simply is not an option, but I think you could eliminate the need to imprison thieves at the very least, because it would be incredibly easy to track them if they were to go back to thievery. As with everything else, it should be considered on an individual basis.

silverhandorder
02-16-2011, 03:26 PM
Apparently the rich will be able to buy their way out. Just as the wealthy owning a private force to harass their poorer neighbors.

And the strong will abuse the weak and the beautifull will get dates. Why does money make a difference all of a sudden.

Pericles
02-16-2011, 03:31 PM
"Of course crime pays, if crime didn't pay, there wouldn't be any." G. Gordon Liddy

Wesker1982
02-16-2011, 03:42 PM
Apparently the rich will be able to buy their way out.


Let us first consider the problem of the venal or crooked judge or court. What of the court which favors its own wealthy client in trouble? In the first place, any such favoritism will be highly unlikely, given the rewards and sanctions of the free market economy.


business firms in the free market earn their keep, not from wealthy customers, but from a mass market by consumers.


But contrast the present system, where judges, like all other politicians, may be beholden to wealthy contributors who finance the campaigns of their political parties.


Just as the wealthy owning a private force to harass their poorer neighbors.


The same analysis applies to the possibility of a private police force becoming outlaw, of using their coercive powers to exact tribute, set up a "protection racket" to shake down their victims, etc. Of course, such a thing could happen. But, in contrast to present-day society, there would be immediate checks and balances available; there would be other police forces who could use their weapons to band together to put down the aggressors against their clientele. If the Metropolitan Police Force should become gangsters and exact tribute, then the rest of society could flock to the Prudential, Equitable, etc., police forces who could band together to put them down. And this contrasts vividly with the State. If a group of gangsters should capture the State apparatus, with its monopoly of coercive weapons, there is nothing at present that can stop them — short of the immensely difficult process of revolution. In a libertarian society there would be no need for a massive revolution to stop the depredation of gangster-States; there would be a swift turning to the honest police forces to check and put down the force that had turned bandit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqo7XMkbtEk

fisharmor
02-16-2011, 03:43 PM
We have sheriffs and I am sure there are plenty of volunteers to tap into when a child goes missing.

The distinction between sheriffs and police hasn't been made in this thread yet, so I offer it here:
The job of the sheriff is generally the job of a responder.
The job of the police is the job of the preemptive aggressor.
I could breathe easier in a world that only had state sponsored sheriffs, but we'd still need to address the militarism of law enforcement, and put some kind of real check and balance into play which limits their aggressiveness.
I find it much easier to wipe the slate clean and leave it at "we'll figure something out".


And what about a lengthy prison term? Or have we gone completely off the rails now in believing there should be no prisons?
Prisons are a relatively new development in world history. At least the kind of modern prison which presumes that some (however minor) precautions need to be taken to preserve the life of the prisoners.

It's not really going completely off the rails: it's part of the worldview that doesn't accept the necessity of police.
The entire system is built around the notion that our society ought to empower state agents to stop people from skateboarding in public, inhaling the smoke of certain plants, copying files from one hard drive to another, and trading anything other than federal reserve notes in exchange for goods and services.
Police are the most visible aspect of this system - they are the first responders when individuals get the notion that this is a free country.

Two weeks ago my 2-year-old daughter was sleeping on my lap in my living room.
It spontaneously occurred to me that had our first responders chose to kick in my door and shoot her at close range in the head, I'd be out one daughter, and there's not a fucking thing I could do about it, except perhaps to die as well as I reacted to it.
It's going to take more than the usual song and dance to convince me that we need policing at all.
The more news reports I read, the farther this camera pans, and the more elements of this crooked ass system get evaluated the same way.
The prison system is already in frame with me.

Pericles
02-16-2011, 03:45 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqo7XMkbtEk
So we would end up no better off than we are today.

Wesker1982
02-16-2011, 03:58 PM
So we would end up no better off than we are today.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. He makes a strong case that the worst case scenario is extremely unlikely to happen.

Elwar
02-16-2011, 04:15 PM
Or you provide for your own insurance.

Correct


Charging to put out a fire is not likely to provide sufficient revenues to support a full time department - even a skeleton crew with volunteers. Having at least some full time FD staff is probably desirable, assuming that people want them to arrive sometime before the house and everything in it is destroyed.

I've lived in a county where it had a private fire department. I had the option of paying $20 per month for fire insurance or a maximum of $2,000 for a call to put out a fire (smaller amounts for smaller fires).


I would have no police service at all. I would forbid it, in fact. County sheriffs or the equivalent would be more than enough. Private investigation companies could perhaps be hired to do forensic work - no power to arrest beyond that of any other citizen.

So, if a private citizen or sheriff has power to arrest someone, why not a private police service?


But what of prosecution and courts? I am not in favor of privatizing such affairs unless they are held on very short leashes and ANY violation of a citizens rights were met with swift and grim punishments. Private courts... almost an oxymoron, as is private justice system.

I could see a private court system for legal contracts agreed upon by both parties ahead of time, not so sure about criminal courts.


Police insurance would be hella costly, especially in peaceful places because there is not enough actual crime (vs. fabricated crime, like drinking a beer on the corner) to support such an organization. The more peaceful the community becomes, the less cops are needed. Cops won't like it a bit. I hold precious small doubt we would be under a continuous assault by lobbying organizations to declare sneezing in public w/o a license a felony so the police could justify their positions and salaries. No thank you. I will protect myself.


As I said, my fire company would charge $2,000 for a home fire. My sister-in-law recently got pulled over for a DUI and she was charged $50 for the "policeman's time". Even if crime got down low enough, I'm sure some rent-a-cop would be willing to have a cell phone on him at work and be willing to grab his gun and badge to run down to answer a call for 50 bucks as a side job.


So? Best to have none at all.

Wouldn't the choice of having one be better?

AFPVet
02-16-2011, 04:29 PM
The word Police is frowned upon by liberty lovers... "Police State..." This is why I brought up the idea of voluntary law enforcement. We already have Sheriff's Reserves who are fully commissioned law enforcement officers albeit not paid. The problem is that reserves are not used at much as they could/or should. There are politics at work which need to be fixed.

As for cases, this is where I could see private services being necessary for forensics or investigative services.

Lastly, prisons are already starting to become privatized. The U.S. has the worlds largest prison population which is only wasting tax dollars. Instead of locking people up for everything, decriminalize drugs and other stupid laws. I like the other idea of using advanced house arrest in lieu of prisons. Also, once the term/punishment has been served, the individual should be restored to full liberty and rights.