CreateDebate


Debate Info

103
90
Much, much better... Much, much worse...
Debate Score:193
Arguments:133
Total Votes:221
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Much, much better... (70)
 
 Much, much worse... (64)

Debate Creator

ryuukyuzo(641) pic



Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?

So, what would work out better. Having multiple police agencies so persons can chose to pay for the best protection, or is our current monopolized system safer and more dependable?

Much, much better...

Side Score: 103
VS.

Much, much worse...

Side Score: 90
4 points

The big question: Who watches the watchmen? This could create the very dangerous situation where coercive power falls into the hands of an inhumane corporate machine. The day our democratically elected government orders a company to do something and the company says, "No." is the day we're all seriously fucked.

But if you could solve that problem then it might work. The important thing would be to make sure these companies can't become too powerful, so that they can be appropriately regulated. Let's say these companies can only have light weapons. Keep the tanks and SWAT teams in the hands of elected officials. And let's not let anybody take more than 10% market share.

With appropriate safety measures in place, I do think free-market mechanisms could lead to much more effective law enforcement.

Side: Much, much better...
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

><

And are these publically owned entities on the stockmarket?

If I'm BP can I buy up all the cop shares and order them to arrest anyone who complains about all the oil in the gulf?

Can a Chinese investor buy the Oklahoma City police through money managers?

How about if Wal-Mart starts a police branch who "just happen" to congregate around any Target store in the area with guns and tazers drawn.

And when one of these cops-for-hire kills a kid eating a slurpy because he had a bad day, who arrests him? Call the 911 brought to you by 7-11?

Maybe the Wal-mart police decide to arrest the BP police for false arrests on the coast. Now you have basically gang warfare with a badge.

Private police aren't police,they're mercenaries. State and government police are hard enough to keep from being corrupted without a private industry free-for-all.

Side: Much, much worse...
jessald(1915) Disputed
3 points

Not a very constructive attitude if you ask me. Seems like you should be asking, "How can we make this work?" rather than saying, "This will never work."

If I'm BP can I buy up all the cop shares and order them to arrest anyone who complains about all the oil in the gulf?

Hmm, that could be a problem. Ok, so let's say no stocks. Let's say these entities must be funded via premiums paid by individuals within their service area.

State and government police are hard enough to keep from being corrupted without a private industry free-for-all.

Do you not think that competition would reduce corruption?

Side: Much, much better...
2 points

There won't be nearly as much corruption since everyone would be able to opt out of any corrupt agencies and it will cost a hell of a lot less since it will no longer be at monopoly rates. =)

Side: Much, much better...
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

... right because a private company is going to spend all kinds of money looking for a guy who killed someone, that really helps their bottom line.

And just what we need, spend less money on cops as if they are already not outarmed enough.

Your ideas on this site are consistantly moronic.

Side: Much, much worse...
ryuukyuzo(641) Disputed
1 point

... right because a private company is going to spend all kinds of money looking for a guy who killed someone, that really helps their bottom line.

Assuming their business IS investigation, then yes, yes it does.

...How do you not understand this?

And just what we need, spend less money on cops as if they are already not out armed enough.

No, you don't understand. In a free market there will be exactly the right amount of police as there needs to be. There is an equilibrium between supply and demand and however many police the supply is willing to pay for will be how many there are.

So, as long as person want police protection, there will be an ample supply.

Your ideas on this site are consistantly moronic.

Yeah, that must explain why YOU'RE the one constantly backing down. =/

It's "consistently" by the way.

Side: Much, much better...
1 point

It could work. I don't see any reason why not.

People are willing to pay for police, so police would exist with or without a government.

Side: Much, much better...
2 points

Finally! I was beginning to think I was the only one with any sense around here!

I mean, Jesse is on my side for this one too, but I can't honestly say I agree with him 100%.

Then again, I can't say the same about you either. Is it just police specifically that you find could work without state intervention, or would you agree that one (a government) isn't needed at all and is in fact a hindrance to the economy?

Side: Much, much better...
1 point

No, I pretty much agree with the things you're saying. :p

Side: Much, much better...
3 points

Well, let's see what private industry would do:

-In the name of competition, corners would be cut, for instance in training and employee benefits.

-Background checks wouldn't exist probably, since that wastes money and effort, so you'd have more thugs.

-Police protection would compete for customers, like insurance, and devolve into a protection racket.

Of course, we can always look at real-life examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide

Side: Much, much worse...
ryuukyuzo(641) Disputed
1 point

Huh... and here I was beginning to think you were one of the good guys... =/

- In the name of competition, each agency would be forced to compete for customers, therefore strive to provide a better and less expensive service.

"Cutting corners" is easier and seen to a much larger extent when one company can operate on monopoly terms. Especially if it's a coercive monopoly like the one most governments have.

- Supply and demand my friend. If background checks for employees are enough of a concern that the demand would sooner pay a company that does them, then that's what these companies will do in order to remain competitive on the market.

- Again, supply and demand. You're not the only person against such corruption. If rackets are such a worry amongst the populace then one of two things will happen (probably both). Either people will willingly opt out of an agency they fear are getting too big, or companies built for the sole purpose of investigating police agencies will arise and do just that.

You can't opt out of the current system and you have nothing but the corrupt system itself to depend on for stopping it's own corruption.

It's just simple logic. Companies that must strive to be the best will offer a better service than those that don't have to.

Side: Much, much better...
aveskde(1935) Disputed
3 points

- In the name of competition, each agency would be forced to compete for customers, therefore strive to provide a better and less expensive service.

A less expensive service means that the company spends less on training, uses cheaper technology for vests, guns, etc.

When you're dealing with purely technology, like computers this can be a good thing. Smaller, faster, more efficient processes are devised. Police enforcement is limited to people, which means that they will bottleneck any efficiency, and you'll have to cut corners somewhere, for example not paying overtime or removing employee benefits.

"Cutting corners" is easier and seen to a much larger extent when one company can operate on monopoly terms. Especially if it's a coercive monopoly like the one most governments have.

Cutting corners applies to any business model, since capitalism and industry is a matter of thriftiness.

- Supply and demand my friend. If background checks for employees are enough of a concern that the demand would sooner pay a company that does them, then that's what these companies will do in order to remain competitive on the market.

Why don't you look at real-world examples of what companies do to save money.

For example, in the food industry background checks are not made because it's too costly despite the handling of food. In business, employees receive few benefits unless there is union intervention or state intervention. They are also paid less without union coercion.

Background checking would be in a long line of things cut.

- Again, supply and demand. You're not the only person against such corruption. If rackets are such a worry amongst the populace then one of two things will happen (probably both). Either people will willingly opt out of an agency they fear are getting too big, or companies built for the sole purpose of investigating police agencies will arise and do just that.

Look into insurance companies and how abusive they became towards customers, and how leaving it to economics didn't solve this.

You can't opt out of the current system and you have nothing but the corrupt system itself to depend on for stopping it's own corruption.

It works well, actually. I also wouldn't want a corporation with armed military capacity forming within our borders, it is a recipe for a coup.

It's just simple logic. Companies that must strive to be the best will offer a better service than those that don't have to.

And yet history reveals a different story, that it is actually more complicated.

Side: Much, much worse...
0 points

Blackwater is not police, it is a private military company. Therefore, it is not a real life example.

Side: Much, much worse...
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

Blackwater is not police, it is a private military company. Therefore, it is not a real life example.

It deals in the use of lethal force and deployment. It's not a perfect example, but illustrates a lack of scruples to private enterprise and force.

Side: Much, much worse...
2 points

There's a reason why the government has a monopoly on force. The force is divided (in America) between the military, the courts, the police, and the militias.

Side: Much, much worse...
ryuukyuzo(641) Disputed
2 points

So... it's good to let the government monopolize force because the government monopolizes force???

Side: Much, much better...
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

So... it's good to let the government monopolize force because the government monopolizes force???

Emendatum.

When you have amassed force that exists aside the state, it will eventually rival the state and take control. This is known as a coup, or coup d'etat.

If you have many such factions, it will eventually lead to an outbreak of fighting, like gang wars, for power. It may lead to an alliance to overthrow the state.

Side: Much, much worse...

Adam Smith postulated that police and military must be government operated, and I agree with him.

Side: Much, much worse...
ryuukyuzo(641) Disputed
2 points

Jeez, all these people I thought to be wise anarcho-capitalists turned out to be ordinary statists in the end...

Alright, why is it that police must be under the rule of a coercive monopoly?...

Side: Much, much better...

Sorry, I am libertarian, but I will not support anarchy. Adam Smith, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison all firmly believed police is reserved in government along with the court system.

However, privatization of fire departments is feasible.

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Should_fire_departments_be_privatized

Side: Much, much better...
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

Jeez, all these people I thought to be wise anarcho-capitalists turned out to be ordinary statists in the end...

Prayerfails is an anarcho-capitalist in all but name. The rest of us are not because anarchy only leads to government, one of brute force and most often after wars between factions that naturally form as people join together by interest and political affiliation.

Capitalism itself is not an optimal economic model. It requires state management, and the optimal models reflect a form closer to socialism or a capitalism/communism hybrid. That is because private industry and government must grow to rival each other, if one eclipses the other we start to see a failure.

Side: Much, much worse...
1 point

If there was multiple police forces what happens when a police officer witnesses a crime committed against someone who is not under his organization; Is he supposed to stand aside as that individual is assaulted, killed, or has his property destroyed?

The entire point of the police force is to uphold a functional society, I fail to see how a for-profit police force manages that.

Side: It is flawed
ryuukyuzo(641) Disputed
2 points

I won't pretend that I know exactly how things will turn out on a free market because the market is a dynamic thing with a constantly changing supply and demand.

But, I would imagine that if such an event occurred, the officer could protect the civilian (or his property, whatever the crime happened to be) then bill him for it later.

Persons solve problems all the time, its what they do. When a demand arises, so does a supply to take advantage of it.

When you allow one entity a coercive monopoly on police protection, you inevitably get police shortages at monopoly rates, since they can get away with it.

Competitive police agencies remove the possibility of monopoly rates and forces each agency to compete for customers, therefore constantly improve on their service to out-do the competition.

Side: Much, much better...

As incompetent and inefficient government is, it should assume the the duties of law enforcement. Not sure if a private company could legally enforce laws without being the entity of lawmaking.

Side: Much, much worse...
0 points

It would be MUCH MUCH BETTER...

for those who have enough money.

Side: Much, much worse...
jessald(1915) Disputed
3 points

Subsidies are a good way of dealing with that problem.

We can handle police protection the same way we handle health insurance.

Side: Much, much better...
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

We can handle police protection the same way we handle health insurance.

Oh please no.

Side: Much, much worse...
ryuukyuzo(641) Disputed
1 point

Actually, with several agencies competing for the most customers, prices will be driven down much more affordable rates than we pay now.

Take roads and schools for example...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W99ziyoUpSQ

Side: Much, much better...
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

Actually, with several agencies competing for the most customers, prices will be driven down much more affordable rates than we pay now.

At the cost of employees not having medical, or retirement.

Take roads and schools for example...

Two things which require a consistant quality that private enterprise cannot provide.

Side: Much, much worse...
0 points

if holly wood is to believed, that would end badly, and Hollywood would never lie.

but seriously, its probably a very bad idea.

Side: Much, much worse...