Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,019
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    Weak. Weak, weak, weak, weak, weak, weak, weak, weak, weak. Did I mention, WEAK?
    What's truly weak is the position of some people who expect a military for national defense, police and fire protection, highway and bridge maintenance, primary education and other services essential to maintain a nation, and then claim taxes to support those services are theft.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  2. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    What's truly weak is the position of some people who expect a military for national defense, police and fire protection, highway and bridge maintenance, primary education and other services essential to maintain a nation, and then claim taxes to support those services are theft.
    No one I have ever spoke to advocates zero taxes. What a lot of people advocate, myself included, is a dramatic reduction in the amount of government spending and taxes collected. That is not a weak position nor an illogical one to hold by any objective measure.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  3. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,019
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    No one I have ever spoke to advocates zero taxes. What a lot of people advocate, myself included, is a dramatic reduction in the amount of government spending and taxes collected. That is not a weak position nor an illogical one to hold by any objective measure.
    Have you spoken to LagerHead?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  4. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    What's truly weak is the position of some people who expect a military for national defense, police and fire protection, highway and bridge maintenance, primary education and other services essential to maintain a nation, and then claim taxes to support those services are theft.
    You're right. Since I asked for all of those things...oh crap, wait. Hell no I didn't. So hey, I guess I was right, it is theft. So let me repeat: WEAK!

    EDIT: Let me add, that most of that stuff can be done by the private sector as well, and better and/or cheaper. Yet another reason that taxes are theft.

  5. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    You're right. Since I asked for all of those things...oh crap, wait. Hell no I didn't. So hey, I guess I was right, it is theft. So let me repeat: WEAK!

    EDIT: Let me add, that most of that stuff can be done by the private sector as well, and better and/or cheaper. Yet another reason that taxes are theft.
    How do you privatize police?

    A policeman's duty is to enforce society's rules and serve all citizens, not just those who pay them. If you hire someone to protect you exclusively (whether "you" is an individual or a group of people), you have a bodyguard, not a policeman. And if you are paying someone to do your bidding, then they are not necessarily obligated to enforce society's laws.

  6. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    How do you privatize police?

    A policeman's duty is to enforce society's rules and serve all citizens, not just those who pay them. If you hire someone to protect you exclusively (whether "you" is an individual or a group of people), you have a bodyguard, not a policeman. And if you are paying someone to do your bidding, then they are not necessarily obligated to enforce society's laws.
    First, police aren't required to protect anyone. Second, they currently only "serve" those who pay them, i.e. the taxpayers in the district where they live. And I don't need a bodyguard. I carry everywhere I go and very, very rarely go where I can't.

    But hey, what if I wanted to opt out of police non-protection? There are municipalities that have let homes burn to the ground because the homeowner was behind on their property taxes. So there are obviously mechanisms in place for agencies to track who has paid their dues and who hasn't. So if you opt in and pay, you get the police protection within the law, otherwise you don't.

    But I like your implication that government employees are somehow more trustworthy than the general public. They must think it's quaint.

  7. #27
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,019
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    You're right. Since I asked for all of those things...oh crap, wait. Hell no I didn't. So hey, I guess I was right, it is theft. So let me repeat: WEAK!

    EDIT: Let me add, that most of that stuff can be done by the private sector as well, and better and/or cheaper. Yet another reason that taxes are theft.

    Let me ask about the most basic expenditure that allows us to continue as an independent country: national defense spending. Do you believe the US government should spend money in defense of our nation, our borders, and our citizens? If yes, how should that be paid for? If not, how do you expect us to survive as a country without being slowly overrun by illegal aliens from the south or conquered by communist China?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  8. #28
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Let me ask about the most basic expenditure that allows us to continue as an independent country: national defense spending. Do you believe the US government should spend money in defense of our nation, our borders, and our citizens? If yes, how should that be paid for? If not, how do you expect us to survive as a country without being slowly overrun by illegal aliens from the south or conquered by communist China?
    How was it paid for before the income tax was implemented? The government hasn't always taxed its citizens like it was some kind of free for all, and we fought several wars before they started. So I'm guessing there must be a way to handle it.

  9. #29
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,019
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    How was it paid for before the income tax was implemented? The government hasn't always taxed its citizens like it was some kind of free for all, and we fought several wars before they started. So I'm guessing there must be a way to handle it.
    Expenses from early wars, including those from the War of Independence, were paid using taxes raised through tariffs on imports and excise taxes on the sale of domestic products such as whiskey, tobacco and sugar.
    Last edited by evensaul; May 6th, 2014 at 05:50 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  10. #30
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Alright, guys. Keep it civil. This is a debate forum, not a place to exchange insults.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  11. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    First, police aren't required to protect anyone.
    And I didn't say otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    Second, they currently only "serve" those who pay them, i.e. the taxpayers in the district where they live.
    But as I said, their duty is to enforce society's laws and while their jurisdiction is limited (they only enforce within a certain region) they serve everyone within that region, even if they are not native. An out-of-state individual would still receive the same service as a local.


    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    But hey, what if I wanted to opt out of police non-protection? There are municipalities that have let homes burn to the ground because the homeowner was behind on their property taxes. So there are obviously mechanisms in place for agencies to track who has paid their dues and who hasn't. So if you opt in and pay, you get the police protection within the law, otherwise you don't.
    Again, I didn't say the police are there to protect you. But if the police do their job well you will benefit from their efforts regardless of whether you opt-out or not. Assuming enforcing laws reduces crime you are benefitting from having safer streets just like everyone else.

    Now, if you were totally self-sufficient - like you lived in a cabin in the woods and receive no societal benefits, I think you would have a solid case of having to give anything to society (and likewise you would probably be paying no taxes, certainly no income tax).

    And I've heard that there actually is a legal opt-out, as in a way to renounce one's citizenship but stay within the country and not receive many of the government benefits. This might be BS so I'm not forwarding this for actual debate (which is why it's in italics) but I thought it worth mentioning.


    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    But I like your implication that government employees are somehow more trustworthy than the general public. They must think it's quaint.
    I didn't say that. Just address the arguments I actually make, please.
    Last edited by mican333; May 7th, 2014 at 10:50 AM.

  12. #32
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I didn't say otherwise.
    No you didn't. Consider it dropped.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But as I said, their duty is to enforce society's laws and while their jurisdiction is limited (they only enforce within a certain region) they serve everyone within that region, even if they are not native. An out-of-state individual would still receive the same service as a local.
    Private police would have the same duty. The source of the funding is the only thing that would change.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Again, I didn't say the police are there to protect you. But if the police do their job well you will benefit from their efforts regardless of whether you opt-out or not. Assuming enforcing laws reduces crime you are benefitting from having safer streets just like everyone else.
    That is actually an excellent point. If my neighbor "opted in" and I didn't, of course a criminal would generally not having a way of knowing that. But couldn't my community have a vote to choose the right solution? If there were 5 companies that provided private police protection in my area, couldn't we vote as a community and choose the one that best suits our needs? For example, the area where I live has probably never seen the need for the use of a SWAT team, so maybe we would choose the company that opts for increased patrols over the cost of tanks and stuff that aren't really necessary where I live.

    I'm not sure what the mechanism would be for collecting my share of the payment, but that, like all things, could be worked out easily enough without anyone threatening me with violence.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Now, if you were totally self-sufficient - like you lived in a cabin in the woods and receive no societal benefits, I think you would have a solid case of having to give anything to society (and likewise you would probably be paying no taxes, certainly no income tax).

    And I've heard that there actually is a legal opt-out, as in a way to renounce one's citizenship but stay within the country and not receive many of the government benefits. This might be BS so I'm not forwarding this for actual debate (which is why it's in italics) but I thought it worth mentioning.
    There are certainly folks who claim a similar status, but I don't think the US government recognizes it. They are generally referred to by law enforcement as "sovereign citizens," though I don't think they impose that label upon themselves since it's a contradiction in terms.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I didn't say that. Just address the arguments I actually make, please.
    Apologies. My mind took "obligated to enforce society's laws" and somehow twisted it to mean that they can be trusted to do so, which of course are two different things.

    But the argument still doesn't hold water because in practice they (government run police) are only obligated to enforce the laws to the extent that they don't get fired for not doing so. In other words, their primary motivation for staying within the bounds of the law is not getting fired. Not only would a private organization not be equally as motivated by money, I believe they would be more motivated. Have you ever seen the incredible lengths to which one must go to fire a government employee? I could build a full scale pyramid by myself using only a child's beach bucket and shovel in half the time it takes to fire a completely useless government employee. Private organizations generally don't suffer from the same mountains of bureaucracy and therefore can more easily separate the wheat from the chaff.

    Look, I don't mean to come off as implying that I don't receive any benefit from paying taxes. Because I pay taxes there is a fire department about 1 mile from my house. If a fire starts and I can't control it, I can leave my home and call 911 and they will come put the fire out to the best of their ability. The chief lives two doors down from me. My point is that taxes are taken from me without my consent and I have zero say so in how they are used.

    In truth, even though I recognize that it is certainly theft, I wouldn't have 1/10th the problem with it if my money weren't being used for such completely unjustifiable causes such as teaching men in Africa how to wash their penis. I know the amount of money used for such pork barrel projects is relatively small, but I'm also against all forms of government welfare, the cost of which is anything but trivial. And yes, that includes corporate welfare of all types. The real source of my problem with the government's theft of my money is the piss poor way in which they manage it.

  13. #33
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post

    Private police would have the same duty. The source of the funding is the only thing that would change.
    As a general rule, whoever gets hired serves the interest of those who hire them. When society hires police, the police serve society. When private interests hire the police, the police serve those private interests .

    So you cannot divorce where the police get their money from and who the police have a duty towards. So a change in the source of funding will change the police's duty.



    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    That is actually an excellent point. If my neighbor "opted in" and I didn't, of course a criminal would generally not having a way of knowing that. But couldn't my community have a vote to choose the right solution? If there were 5 companies that provided private police protection in my area, couldn't we vote as a community and choose the one that best suits our needs? For example, the area where I live has probably never seen the need for the use of a SWAT team, so maybe we would choose the company that opts for increased patrols over the cost of tanks and stuff that aren't really necessary where I live.
    A community can always hire additional security to patrol their neighborhoods. But good societal police enforcement will still help your community avoid trouble by keeping bad guys off of the streets so they are less likely to wander into your neighborhood in the first place, regardless of whether you have private security or not.



    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    But the argument still doesn't hold water because in practice they (government run police) are only obligated to enforce the laws to the extent that they don't get fired for not doing so. In other words, their primary motivation for staying within the bounds of the law is not getting fired. Not only would a private organization not be equally as motivated by money, I believe they would be more motivated.
    I think at the individual level, public and private police are motivated by money. The reason one does not want to get fired is that they will stop getting paid so for everyone, the motivation is money.

    And basically what they do is what they are paid to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    Have you ever seen the incredible lengths to which one must go to fire a government employee? I could build a full scale pyramid by myself using only a child's beach bucket and shovel in half the time it takes to fire a completely useless government employee. Private organizations generally don't suffer from the same mountains of bureaucracy and therefore can more easily separate the wheat from the chaff.
    But I believe it's a different matter with police. A policeman will suffer if he does a poor job.


    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    Look, I don't mean to come off as implying that I don't receive any benefit from paying taxes. Because I pay taxes there is a fire department about 1 mile from my house. If a fire starts and I can't control it, I can leave my home and call 911 and they will come put the fire out to the best of their ability. The chief lives two doors down from me. My point is that taxes are taken from me without my consent and I have zero say so in how they are used.
    I hear ya, but this is not the issue that I'm debating.

    I am saying that some things should be publicly funded and privatizing them would not be better. The police, IMO, is probably the most clear example.

    Again, the police will serve whoever pays them. If a private individual hires the police then the police will serve that individual and will then not necessarily even be concerned any societal the rule of law. I mean if you hire your own police and then pay them to kill your neighbor, they will have more motivation to commit murder than obey the rule of law against murder.

    So assuming we want a police force that serves everyone in the public equally under the laws that the public wants, they have to be funded by the public so there's at least one thing that is better to have funded publicly instead of privately.
    Last edited by mican333; May 7th, 2014 at 02:40 PM.

  14. #34
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As a general rule, whoever gets hired serves the interest of those who hire them. When society hires police, the police serve society. When private interests hire the police, the police serve those private interests .

    So you cannot divorce where the police get their money from and who the police have a duty towards. So a change in the source of funding will change the police's duty.
    Support this. Many of the country's fire departments are privatized and yet still serve the same public interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    A community can always hire additional security to patrol their neighborhoods. But good societal police enforcement will still help your community avoid trouble by keeping bad guys off of the streets so they are less likely to wander into your neighborhood in the first place, regardless of whether you have private security or not.
    Yes they are. Your position seems to be that it is impossible to have communities pay for their own law enforcement and have it be fair or effective. My position is that it is every bit as likely that private law enforcement would be at least as effective.

    [QUOTE=mican333;537690]I think at the individual level, public and private police are motivated by money. The reason one does not want to get fired is that they will stop getting paid so for everyone, the motivation is money.

    And basically what they do is what they are paid to do.

    I think we both just said the same thing, albeit maybe in slightly different ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But I believe it's a different matter with police. A policeman will suffer if he does a poor job.
    I disagree. Most police are unionized. Combine unions and government employees? Oy, what a mess!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I hear ya, but this is not the issue that I'm debating.
    Understood. Just a side bar comment, really.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I am saying that some things should be publicly funded and privatizing them would not be better. The police, IMO, is probably the most clear example.

    Again, the police will serve whoever pays them. If a private individual hires the police then the police will serve that individual and will then not necessarily even be concerned any societal the rule of law. I mean if you hire your own police and then pay them to kill your neighbor, they will have more motivation to commit murder than obey the rule of law against murder.
    This is not police. This is a mercenary. I'm suggesting that a legal framework could be constructed within which private police could operate. In fact, they already do, in places such as large shopping malls, universities, etc. In some locales private police forces have the authority to make arrests, just like our public ones. And I rarely hear a wrinkle in those cases. So if it is already a tried and true method, what is the problem with expanding it where folks might prefer that kind of arrangement?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So assuming we want a police force that serves everyone in the public equally under the laws that the public wants, they have to be funded by the public so there's at least one thing that is better to have funded publicly instead of privately.
    Again, support this. Show that a privately funded police force MUST server ONLY the interests of those who pay them, and can't operate in an objective and fair manner.

    (Another side bar: I'm enjoying the debate either way.)

  15. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    I think we are having a bit of a miscommunication and I figured it out.

    By "private" you meant the work being done by a private company as opposed to government employees. And what I meant by "private" is that the work is not being funded by public money.

    But if a private company is hired by the government to do, say, police work, that private company is still being paid with the tax dollars that are "stolen" from you so this kind of privatization does not solve the problem of you having to pay taxes for the police.

    So I don't challenge the notion of a city hiring a private firm for its police needs (I'm not necessarily sold on it either but I'm not challenging the argument that it would be better).

    But I consider a TRULY private police force as one that is not paid for with tax dollars and instead is payed for by people who choose to, and can afford to, purchase police protection.

    Considering this new understanding, many of my following points might not be relevant or may be redundant so feel free to not respond to certain points.

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    Support this. Many of the country's fire departments are privatized and yet still serve the same public interest.
    But I'm guessing they are still paid by municipalities using "stolen" taxpayer money.


    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    Yes they are. Your position seems to be that it is impossible to have communities pay for their own law enforcement and have it be fair or effective. My position is that it is every bit as likely that private law enforcement would be at least as effective.
    I'm sure it could be very effective to those who are paying them. But I see little reason that they would look after the interests of anyone else, such as the society in general.

    I mean the scenario of a city hiring a private police firm is feasible but the city will be paying that police force with taxpayer dollars. So even if that police force is better, you are still getting your tax dollars "stolen" from you. And if you cut the city out of the picture and pay for the police out of your own pocket, then they have no reason to do anything other than what you want them to do so whether they enforce the law for society in general would be dependent soley on whether you would choose to pay them to do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    I'm suggesting that a legal framework could be constructed within which private police could operate. In fact, they already do, in places such as large shopping malls, universities, etc. In some locales private police forces have the authority to make arrests, just like our public ones. And I rarely hear a wrinkle in those cases. So if it is already a tried and true method, what is the problem with expanding it where folks might prefer that kind of arrangement?
    I don't have a problem with that kind of arrangement. But then that arrangement still has plenty of police that are paid for by the public.

    Again, you suggested that we privatize the police entirely. And again, if you mean that instead of having their own internal police force that are paid for with tax dollars. then your tax dollars are still being "stolen".


    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    Again, support this. Show that a privately funded police force MUST server ONLY the interests of those who pay them, and can't operate in an objective and fair manner.
    Well, what happens when you consistently don't do what your boss/client is paying you to do? You get fired and someone who will do your bosses bidding gets hired in your place. So ultimately the police force, if their funding is just from private individuals, will have to do the bidding of those individuals.



    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    (Another side bar: I'm enjoying the debate either way.)
    Me too. And what's funny is that I used to work for a city television station and they decided to privatize their video service and shut down the station (I was freelancing then so it didn't really hurt my finances) and the station manager formed a private video production company and got the private city contract and later hired me. So I currently my employment is very much relevant to this debate. So I work for a private company that is paid with "stolen" tax payer dollars by a city.
    Last edited by mican333; May 8th, 2014 at 06:49 AM.

  16. #36
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I think we are having a bit of a miscommunication and I figured it out.

    By "private" you meant the work being done by a private company as opposed to government employees. And what I meant by "private" is that the work is not being funded by public money.

    But if a private company is hired by the government to do, say, police work, that private company is still being paid with the tax dollars that are "stolen" from you so this kind of privatization does not solve the problem of you having to pay taxes for the police.

    So I don't challenge the notion of a city hiring a private firm for its police needs (I'm not necessarily sold on it either but I'm not challenging the argument that it would be better).

    But I consider a TRULY private police force as one that is not paid for with tax dollars and instead is payed for by people who choose to, and can afford to, purchase police protection.

    Considering this new understanding, many of my following points might not be relevant or may be redundant so feel free to not respond to certain points.
    I consider private meaning the work is NEITHER done by public employees nor funded by public coffers.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But I'm guessing they are still paid by municipalities using "stolen" taxpayer money.
    Excellent point. But private police forces aren't and they are pretty effective too.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm sure it could be very effective to those who are paying them. But I see little reason that they would look after the interests of anyone else, such as the society in general.
    You are the one that implied earlier that this statement is not true. By policing a given area, as all police do, the general benefit is that the area is safer for all residents because of their presence. Who pays them does not change the deterrent effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I mean the scenario of a city hiring a private police firm is feasible but the city will be paying that police force with taxpayer dollars. So even if that police force is better, you are still getting your tax dollars "stolen" from you. And if you cut the city out of the picture and pay for the police out of your own pocket, then they have no reason to do anything other than what you want them to do so whether they enforce the law for society in general would be dependent soley on whether you would choose to pay them to do that.
    Again, a legal framework could be established where this would not be the case. In fact, legal frameworks already exist for this exact scenario and they work fine.

    I don't have a problem with that kind of arrangement. But then that arrangement still has plenty of police that are paid for by the public.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Again, you suggested that we privatize the police entirely. And again, if you mean that instead of having their own internal police force that are paid for with tax dollars. then your tax dollars are still being "stolen".
    True. In reality, my vision would probably never happen. Not that I believe it couldn't work, but it's not realistic for politicians and others who are feeding from the gravy train to simply walk away from it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, what happens when you consistently don't do what your boss/client is paying you to do? You get fired and someone who will do your bosses bidding gets hired in your place. So ultimately the police force, if their funding is just from private individuals, will have to do the bidding of those individuals.
    How is this different from the current setup?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Me too. And what's funny is that I used to work for a city television station and they decided to privatize their video service and shut down the station (I was freelancing then so it didn't really hurt my finances) and the station manager formed a private video production company and got the private city contract and later hired me. So I currently my employment is very much relevant to this debate. So I work for a private company that is paid with "stolen" tax payer dollars by a city.
    Here's the reality of the situation: I'm sort of an unfortunate mix of an idealist and a realist. The idealist in me wants a world in which personal freedoms are protected above all else, period. The realist in me knows that the world doesn't work that way and understands that something is better than nothing. So what I would really like to see is what you alluded to above, i.e. governments that use my stolen money in the most effective manner, which means privatizing A LOT of functions; cutting back on the size and scope of government; ending most, if not all foreign aid, etc. For example, if I was in charge, you would be looking for another job. Not because I don't like you, but because I also don't believe governments should be involved in the arts and entertainment industries at all. I don't believe in subsidizing the arts, business, individuals, etc. The only reason politicians are for subsidies is because they can buy votes with other peoples' money.

    So in short, I concede my ideas probably won't work in today's society, but only because it doesn't get politicians re-elected. Someday, though, people will wake up across this great nation, as they have in places like Sandy Springs, GA, and we'll privatize a lot of functions and get this country back on the road to economic solvency. Until then, things will continue to get worse, our debt will continue to skyrocket, and the economy will continue to have and suffer from government-created bubbles.

  17. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    I consider private meaning the work is NEITHER done by public employees nor funded by public coffers.
    Good. Then we are on the same page as far as what "private" means. And keep in mind that when public services are "privatized", they usually, if not always, paid for by taxpayer dollars so "privatizing" does not necessarily mean being not being paid by public coffers. In fact, by that definition, it would be impossible for a government to privatize their services for all they can only pay with taxpayer money.

    So I'd say there's three relevant concepts.

    1. Public services provided by tax-payer funded government employees
    2. Public services provided by tax-payer funded private companies
    3. Public services provided by privately funded private companies.

    And we are talking about #3 when we say "private".

    And I would say the primary problem with #3 is that if the funds are completely private then whether there's any money for public services is if people volunteer to provide money for them. But if no one volunteers any money then there will be no money for public services and therefore no public services. Or if the money is inadequate then the there will be inadequate public services, which I think is the likely scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    Excellent point. But private police forces aren't and they are pretty effective too.
    Support or retract. Please give an example of a private police force (as we have defined "private") that effectively serves the public but are not paid for with public monies.

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    You are the one that implied earlier that this statement is not true. By policing a given area, as all police do, the general benefit is that the area is safer for all residents because of their presence. Who pays them does not change the deterrent effect.
    And if no one pays them there will be no police at all. That's really my point. If you let people spend their own money as they see fit on their security, there will probably be little or no police but instead private security guards who will only protect those who pay them.

    I mean if you had $10,000 per year to spend on security and you were interested primarily in protecting your family. it would be much more efficient to spend the money on a security firm who will protect your family and therefore you would not use your security money for other purposes, such as enforcing societal laws like a policeman would. So odds are you would spend that $10,000 on security guards and none of it on policemen.

    I just don't see where the police would get their money. It's not impossible that some very rich people might donate some money towards police as a charitable contribution but clearly there would not be as much money for police as there is now so the enforcement of societal rules would suffer greatly.




    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    Again, a legal framework could be established where this would not be the case. In fact, legal frameworks already exist for this exact scenario and they work fine.

    I don't have a problem with that kind of arrangement. But then that arrangement still has plenty of police that are paid for by the public.
    And therefore tax dollars will be "stolen" from people so that "problem" will still exist.

    And if you are allowed to opt-out of paying for police protection, you will still receive the some of the benefits of police protection so you will be free-loading to some extent - as in you will receive benefits that you don't pay for. Even if you purchase private security for your neighborhood and the regular police don't go there (because you opted out of them serving your area), the police' efforts in cutting down on crime will be felt in your neighborhood. You would probably find that you don't have to spend as much on private security than if there were no police at all so you are saving money on private security because of the tax-payer funded police.

    And even in the above scenario if, say, a murder happened then you would be relying on the public justice system to mete out justice for the killer. Even if your private security guards catch the killer and hand him over to the police, then the publicly-funded justice system would take it from there using tax dollars to punish the killer.


    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    True. In reality, my vision would probably never happen. Not that I believe it couldn't work, but it's not realistic for politicians and others who are feeding from the gravy train to simply walk away from it.
    If there is no money for law enforcement (and law enforcement is not the same as protection), there will be no law enforcement. And as far as I can tell, your proposal would pretty much defund law enforcement.

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    How is this different from the current setup?
    Currently the police are hired by the public to serve the public as opposed to being hired by a private individual to serve his individual needs.



    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    For example, if I was in charge, you would be looking for another job. Not because I don't like you, but because I also don't believe governments should be involved in the arts and entertainment industries at all.
    Actually our primary job is to broadcast city meetings to the public so it's not about arts and entertainment but informing the citizens of what the government is doing. I guess we're kind of like CSPAN.
    Last edited by mican333; May 14th, 2014 at 06:26 AM.

  18. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Support or retract. Please give an example of a private police force (as we have defined "private") that effectively serves the public but are not paid for with public monies.
    The San Francisco Patrol Special Police.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And if no one pays them there will be no police at all, which is what would happen. That's really my point. If you let people spend their own money as they see fit on their security, there will probably be no police but instead private security guards who will only protect those who pay them.
    That is your unsupported opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I mean if you had $10,000 per year to spend on security and you were interested primarily in protecting your family. it would be much more efficient to spend the money on a security firm who will protect your family and therefore not use your money for other purposes, such as enforcing societal laws like a policeman would. So odds are you would spend that $10,000 on security guards and none of it on policemen.
    If you can find me a security guard/firm that will work for what amounts to about $5/hour, please let me know. Of course, that is assuming a 40 hour work week. Police services are generally available 24/7, which would bring that down to about $1.14/hour. However, if everyone in an area provided, say $2,000/year, it wouldn't take very many households before that amount was in the $30/hour or more range, which is going to be very profitable. 300 households would create $600,000 which could easily supply several officers, their cars, and the management of their services for a given area.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I just don't see where the police would get their money.
    Maybe the same place that the guy that takes care of the flower beds and lawns at neighborhood entrances get theirs, i.e. homeowner's associations or similar arrangements.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's not impossible that some very rich people might donate some money towards police as a charitable contribution but clearly there would not be as much money for police as there is now so the enforcement of societal rules would suffer greatly.
    Again, an unsupported opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And therefore tax dollars will be "stolen" from people so that "problem" will still exist.

    And if you are allowed to opt-out of paying for police protection, you will still receive the some of the benefits of police protection so you will be free-loading to some extent - as in you will receive benefits that you don't pay for. Even you purchase private security for your neighborhood and the regular police don't go there (because you opted out of them serving your area), the police' efforts in cutting down on crime will be felt in your neighborhood. You would probably find that you don't have to spend as much on private security than if there were no police at all so you are saving money on private security because of the tax-payer funded police.
    Make up your mind. Either private police can provide a benefit to society as a whole or they can't. You are vacillating between the two positions.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If there is no money for law enforcement (and law enforcement is not the same as protection), there will be no law enforcement. And as far as I can tell, your proposal would pretty much defund law enforcement.
    Stealing money from me is not the only way for someone to get paid. My company doesn't steal money from anyone and yet I receive a paycheck regularly, twice a month.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Currently the police are hired by the public to serve the public as opposed to being hired by a private individual to serve his individual needs.
    The latter is a fabrication of your own imagination. I have never mentioned or advocated mercenary services.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Actually our primary job is to broadcast city meetings to the public so it's not about arts and entertainment but informing the citizens of what the government is doing. I guess we're kind of like CSPAN.
    Then why do you need public money? If the public really wanted what you are selling, they would pay for it. That's how, and why markets work.

  19. #39
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    The San Francisco Patrol Special Police.
    They are not police, but a "private neighborhood policing service" (quote is from their website). I doubt they can even arrest people (holding a criminal until the police arrive to arrest him is not arresting him).

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    That is your unsupported opinion.
    Then I will support it.

    1. The police are currently funded by taxpayer dollars.
    2. If you remove the taxpayer dollars you remove the current source of police funding
    3. The only way police will remain without taxpayer dollars is if they are funded by alternative means
    4. There has been no support that there will be, or even likely will, alternative means to adequately fund the police.
    5. Therefore the notion that police would still exist if we removed taxpayer funding is not supported.
    6. Therefore, at this point, the position that we would still have police as we know them if we stopped funding them through taxpayer dollars fails for lack of support.

    You can't actually say that alternative means of funding police officers (those who enforce societal laws) at anything resembling their current levels will definitely happen if we completely remove public funding, can you? And if you do say that, then I ask that you support this assertion.



    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    If you can find me a security guard/firm that will work for what amounts to about $5/hour, please let me know. Of course, that is assuming a 40 hour work week. Police services are generally available 24/7, which would bring that down to about $1.14/hour. However, if everyone in an area provided, say $2,000/year, it wouldn't take very many households before that amount was in the $30/hour or more range, which is going to be very profitable. 300 households would create $600,000 which could easily supply several officers, their cars, and the management of their services for a given area.
    That doesn't address my point at all. I'm not saying that one could not hire others to patrol your neighborhood and help keep everyone safe. I'm saying those that you hire probably won't qualify as police but instead will be security guards. Here's the difference between the two.

    POLICE - Enforce society's laws and arrests those who break the laws.
    SECURITY GUARD - Protect those who pay for their protection.

    So if you are hiring men to keep your area safe and protect those within, what you have are security guards, not police.

    And I assume that any of the 300 houses in your area can opt-out of paying for security. And while the security guards/police can opt to not protect the individual houses of those who don't pay, they will be providing them some security by keeping the entire area safer - their presence on the streets increases security for payers and non-payers alike. So what if only a third choose to pay for security and now you have to pay 6K instead of 2K and your money will, in part, be going to protect a bunch of dead-beats? And what if you can't afford to pay 6K?


    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    Make up your mind. Either private police can provide a benefit to society as a whole or they can't. You are vacillating between the two positions.
    I didn't say that private security won't provide a benefit to society. What I'm saying is that public police provide a benefit to your even if you likewise hire private security for you will need less private security (and therefore not pay as much for it) because of the efforts of public police. So if you opt-out you are receiving a benefit that you aren't paying for.

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    The latter is a fabrication of your own imagination. I have never mentioned or advocated mercenary services.
    I didn't say mercenary. I said security guard. Again, a person who is hired privately to protect just those who are paying him is a security guard.

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    Then why do you need public money? If the public really wanted what you are selling, they would pay for it. That's how, and why markets work.
    How do you know that the public doesn't want our service?
    Last edited by mican333; May 14th, 2014 at 09:26 AM.

  20. #40
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I Report This Crime? To Whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    They are not police, but a "private neighborhood policing service" (quote is from their website). I doubt they can even arrest people (holding a criminal until the police arrive to arrest him is not arresting him).
    They used to have the power to arrest, until 1994. But police unions put a stop to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Then I will support it.

    1. The police are currently funded by taxpayer dollars.
    2. If you remove the taxpayer dollars you remove the current source of police funding
    3. The only way police will remain without taxpayer dollars is if they are funded by alternative means
    4. There has been no support that there will be, or even likely will, alternative means to adequately fund the police.
    5. Therefore the notion that police would still exist if we removed taxpayer funding is not supported.
    6. Therefore, at this point, the position that we would still have police as we know them if we stopped funding them through taxpayer dollars fails for lack of support.

    You can't actually say that alternative means of funding police officers (those who enforce societal laws) at anything resembling their current levels will definitely happen if we completely remove public funding, can you? And if you do say that, then I ask that you support this assertion.
    And you can't say that they won't, so your opinion still remains unsupported. What you have offered is conjecture. I would submit that people are more than willing to pay for safety as evidenced by the fact that companies like ADT and Smith & Wesson make quite a bit of money. Your argument basically boils down to, "It's being paid for now, and if we stopped paying for it, nobody would." I don't believe people would do without the service. I suggest we drop this line since both of us are only providing best guesses.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That doesn't address my point at all. I'm not saying that one could not hire others to patrol your neighborhood and help keep everyone safe. I'm saying those that you hire probably won't qualify as police but instead will be security guards. Here's the difference between the two.

    POLICE - Enforce society's laws and arrests those who break the laws.
    SECURITY GUARD - Protect those who pay for their protection.
    The only reason there is a difference in definition is because that is the way our current laws are written in many places. The laws could easily be changed to accommodate different types of police.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So if you are hiring men to keep your area safe and protect those within, what you have are security guards, not police.
    Then all police are security guards. Police in my town don't come to your town and keep you safe, do they? All police are regional. Some regions are bigger than others. But they are all geographically limited to some extent.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I assume that any of the 300 houses in your area can opt-out of paying for security. And while the security guards/police can opt to not protect the individual houses of those who don't pay, they will be providing them some security by keeping the entire area safer - their presence on the streets increases security for payers and non-payers alike. So what if only a third choose to pay for security and now you have to pay 6K instead of 2K and your money will, in part, be going to protect a bunch of dead-beats? And what if you can't afford to pay 6K?
    If it was handled the same way HOA fees are handled, then there wouldn't be a choice. Just like if you wanted to opt out of having a swimming pool in your neighborhood paid for by HOA fees, if you wanted to opt out of this kind of protection, you wouldn't move into that neighborhood in the first place. Or that area of town. Or that town. However it got handled.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I didn't say that private security won't provide a benefit to society. What I'm saying is that public police provide a benefit to your even if you likewise hire private security for you will need less private security (and therefore not pay as much for it) because of the efforts of public police. So if you opt-out you are receiving a benefit that you aren't paying for.
    The current system works the same way in other areas. For example, people who receive welfare receive a benefit I pay for without paying for it. So I hope you are against government welfare as well, just to be consistent.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I didn't say mercenary. I said security guard. Again, a person who is hired privately to protect just those who are paying him is a security guard.
    You didn't say mercenary, but you certainly defined it more than once.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    How do you know that the public doesn't want our service?
    Cut the cord and find out.

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Guns don't deter crime, People deter crime
    By Sigfried in forum Politics
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: January 16th, 2013, 03:05 PM
  2. Adultery should be a crime
    By Trendem in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: January 1st, 2013, 03:56 PM
  3. Pre-Crime
    By Dionysus in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: January 15th, 2010, 11:42 PM
  4. Abortion & Crime
    By Duo in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 12th, 2006, 02:34 PM
  5. A Life of Crime.
    By Mr. Hyde in forum Writing Club
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 16th, 2006, 08:06 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •