The Instigator
Thefightforfreedom
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
russian_metaphor_man
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Police are paid with stolen money and should be privatized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 482 times Debate No: 77438
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Thefightforfreedom

Pro

Taxation is theft and since police officers are paid by state taxes, they are therefore paid with stolen money. It is immoral and therefore we need to privatize the police force.
russian_metaphor_man

Con

Tax is not stealing it is the payment to the government for services they provide such as healthcare, housing, roads, public transport and domestic and international security etc. So police are in fact not being paid with stolen money. Also the privatisation of the police force would more likely lead to mass corruption, rather than serving the community they would serve the highest bidder this would obviously mean the owner would have a private army at his/her disposal, not good.

Also if it where privatised it would need to operate like any other privately owned business and instead of the focus being on protecting and serving the people it would focus like any business on capitol, where they can make profit, and how would they make money, the only way I can think is either charging for call outs or take money from those they bust which both options would also again lead to corruption.

The privatisation of the police force fails in both theory and practice.
Debate Round No. 1
Thefightforfreedom

Pro

I am sorry for taking so long. Working away form my computer.

If taxation is not theft, then it would be voluntary. If a man is forced at the point of a gun to pay for services that he did not agree to, sign a contract to, make a verbal contract to etc, it is in fact theft. I do not disagree that protection services, fire services, roads, schools, etc are needed, it is the way they are paid which is morally wrong. I could debate all the services the government terribly provides but I will attempt to stick to police, as they throw people who steal in jail (in all reality..a cage), while being paid with money that is backed by the threat of a gun. I am not being irrational when I say that there is a real threat of a gun. If I don't "pay up" to the government they will call me. If I don't respond, I will get letters. After that if they don't get the money they demand they will send men with guns to my home.

Now I will explain another reason how and why taxation is theft. Contracts are used for all forms of services and agreements between two parties. No average man, living in a town, has ever signed a contract with a government to pay for the "services" it provides. If he has, he would not have known it, or was forced to sign it under duress. Which would cause any legal contract to be void. The government is not real. It is a concept. In all reality it is a group of people. With no more power than another person can have. The government can't force you to pay for services you may not want in the same way I cant force you to pay for services you may not want. Because we are all humans. Understand the voting process, 51% cant give the power to forcibly take money for "services" nobody contractually agreed to, because nobody in the 51% ever had that power to give. The 51% cant forcibly take money individually, So how can a bigger group of individuals magically obtain that power? There needs to be written contracts for everything. Imagine the fraud that would run rampant if Verizon connects a wifi service to your house without telling you, you then connect to it without knowing they will charge you. Then a year later you get a bill for $1,000 for the services provided to you. If you went to court saying you never signed a contract, you would win.

The above paragraph blows the "social contract" that nobody signed away. In any, and I mean any, service rendering, there needs to be a written contract involved that is not signed under incompetence or duress. Any judge worth his or her salt will tell you that. Now if what you say is true, then I should be able to take a persons money (I can choose how much, just like the government), and purchase a new car for him/her (while collecting a small fee for my troubles), if I notice the persons previous car is not doing too well, and it should not be considered theft as I have used their money to help the person. We now see just how illogical this sounds right?

On to privatization of the police. You claim mass corruption? Well mass corruption can really thrive where there is no accountability. With the police system we have now it is ripe with corruption! See in the private sector, it is all about accountability. If I don't like your service I stop paying you (a great incentive for the service provider to NOT do bad things), in the public sector I don't have a choice (remember the gun?). If a privatized security service (formerly police), only goes to the highest bidder, it is a horrible business decision. the company would leave so much money on the table. See even in poor city areas, almost everyone has a cell phone. the free market (which we don't have currently), comes up with ways to provide services to everyone simply because it brings in more profit. So the highest bidder issue is false. Competition itself will provide services for just about everyone that wants it. This thought that security would cost crazy amounts of money is untrue. It is simply that the government has a way of wasting money (because they are guaranteed to get money from the taxes at the point of a gun), which in turn drives costs up. So in theory and in practice it can work wonderfully. We can see the proof by looking at any legitimate business currently running. Lets look at amazon.com. if amazon charged huge prices and didn't care about its customers and only cared about profit, they would not last long. Instead their customer service is superb! Their prices are competitive! Its amazing! Lets try Wal-Mart. If you don't like a product you purchased, without any questions you get your money back. If they told people too bad, how far do you think the company will go? Want another? This can go on all day with real life examples. The business model just needs to be applied to private police. Not looked at as a horrible thing.

Last issue is fear. Wont someone with boatloads of cash just take over control of the private police forces and do bad things? Well if you believe that then why aren't our towns turned upside down with police robbing every single person and turning everyone into slaves? It costs tons of money to run an army. You and I go about our daily lives doing voluntary interactions all day long. I don't want to harm you. you don't want to harm me. So most people are about peace, (which is why I wonder why we even allow taxation to continue). If a privatized police force tries to do bad things using force, the stockholders of that company will pull their funds, customers will refuse to use the services and go to a better run company, and the owner will ultimately go belly up. Even if the company started harming people, we would defend ourselves. Same as in any situation. Fear is an irrational emotion. I pride myself on logic, reasoning, and reality.

I want to apologize for the lengthy response. I am new at debate.org and did not realize I could add more rounds.
russian_metaphor_man

Con

russian_metaphor_man forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Thefightforfreedom

Pro

Still waiting for a rebuttal from con.
russian_metaphor_man

Con

I really should stop accepting debates I never have enough time. My apologies
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.