Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

You Can't Privatize Everything

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 6:07:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To the AnCaps who think that you can privatize everything, how would a private fire fighting agency function let alone profit?

My colleague once said, government is necessary to do what the private sector can't do efficiently and for a profit.

A fire department is not efficient and it doesn't have a profit motive. If it did, private fire fighting agencies would have an invested interest in a high number of fires in order for their services to be demanded. Apparently these agencies exist as I've seen John Stossel showcase them, but how they operate appears to me unclear.

There exists many services that are necessary and practical but aren't consumer based, not efficient, and not profitable.

AnCaps will accuse government solutions of being unworkable because they try to be one-size-fits-all, but they make the same mistake by thinking that private solutions can meet the demands of everything and solve all problems. Not everything is a consumer good and that's just a fact.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 6:16:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"I am not arguing that government does not have a role, of course it does. I am not an anarchist, but I am persuaded that the problem of our society today is too much government, not too little. Indeed I am persuaded that government is failing to perform the functions which it alone can perform, because we are trying to have it perform functions which it cannot perform."

-- Milton Friedman
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 6:22:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the poor can't afford fire services, then they obviously must not have anything valuable enough to be worth saving.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 12:04:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 6:07:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To the AnCaps who think that you can privatize everything, how would a private fire fighting agency function let alone profit?

My colleague once said, government is necessary to do what the private sector can't do efficiently and for a profit.

A fire department is not efficient and it doesn't have a profit motive. If it did, private fire fighting agencies would have an invested interest in a high number of fires in order for their services to be demanded. Apparently these agencies exist as I've seen John Stossel showcase them, but how they operate appears to me unclear.

There exists many services that are necessary and practical but aren't consumer based, not efficient, and not profitable.

AnCaps will accuse government solutions of being unworkable because they try to be one-size-fits-all, but they make the same mistake by thinking that private solutions can meet the demands of everything and solve all problems. Not everything is a consumer good and that's just a fact.

If you think that fire fighting can not be turn in to a profitable business, you're wrong.
2000 years ago the Roman have to pay for a private insurance company in order to receive fire fighting service, a policy will need to be bought so that your house will be protected when it is on fire. If the Roman who at the time, a bit more civilized than a Zulu could have done that why couldn't we do it now?

Privatization of everything is possible, if a state business is either inefficient nor unprofitable there will be no one who will compete with you at the first place.
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 12:18:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 6:07:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To the AnCaps who think that you can privatize everything, how would a private fire fighting agency function let alone profit?

My colleague once said, government is necessary to do what the private sector can't do efficiently and for a profit.

A fire department is not efficient and it doesn't have a profit motive. If it did, private fire fighting agencies would have an invested interest in a high number of fires in order for their services to be demanded. Apparently these agencies exist as I've seen John Stossel showcase them, but how they operate appears to me unclear.

There exists many services that are necessary and practical but aren't consumer based, not efficient, and not profitable.

AnCaps will accuse government solutions of being unworkable because they try to be one-size-fits-all, but they make the same mistake by thinking that private solutions can meet the demands of everything and solve all problems. Not everything is a consumer good and that's just a fact.

I agree with this. Also, private prisons? Wouldn't a private prisons be more concerned as to how many prisoners they have instead of how they treat them and how they are being rehabilitated?
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 1:16:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 12:04:57 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
2000 years ago the Roman have to pay for a private insurance company in order to receive fire fighting service, a policy will need to be bought so that your house will be protected when it is on fire. If the Roman who at the time, a bit more civilized than a Zulu could have done that why couldn't we do it now?

So your answer to privatizing an unprofitable business is to make everyone pay for their services? And this is different from taxes how?

Privatization of everything is possible, if a state business is either inefficient nor unprofitable there will be no one who will compete with you at the first place.

What is your proposal for how we privatize a police force? Do police officers interrupt you in the middle of a mugging, check your ID, see that you're not a paying customer, apologize for the interruption and walk away?
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 2:52:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 1:16:41 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:04:57 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
2000 years ago the Roman have to pay for a private insurance company in order to receive fire fighting service, a policy will need to be bought so that your house will be protected when it is on fire. If the Roman who at the time, a bit more civilized than a Zulu could have done that why couldn't we do it now?

So your answer to privatizing an unprofitable business is to make everyone pay for their services? And this is different from taxes how?

You don't get fined or go to jail if you don't pay for it. Why don't people get this?
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 3:57:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 12:04:57 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:07:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To the AnCaps who think that you can privatize everything, how would a private fire fighting agency function let alone profit?

My colleague once said, government is necessary to do what the private sector can't do efficiently and for a profit.

A fire department is not efficient and it doesn't have a profit motive. If it did, private fire fighting agencies would have an invested interest in a high number of fires in order for their services to be demanded. Apparently these agencies exist as I've seen John Stossel showcase them, but how they operate appears to me unclear.

There exists many services that are necessary and practical but aren't consumer based, not efficient, and not profitable.

AnCaps will accuse government solutions of being unworkable because they try to be one-size-fits-all, but they make the same mistake by thinking that private solutions can meet the demands of everything and solve all problems. Not everything is a consumer good and that's just a fact.

If you think that fire fighting can not be turn in to a profitable business, you're wrong.
2000 years ago the Roman have to pay for a private insurance company in order to receive fire fighting service, a policy will need to be bought so that your house will be protected when it is on fire. If the Roman who at the time, a bit more civilized than a Zulu could have done that why couldn't we do it now?

Privatization of everything is possible, if a state business is either inefficient nor unprofitable there will be no one who will compete with you at the first place.

Sure, you can privatize everything, in that it is physically possible to do so. That doesn't mean it would be more efficient to do so. It is much more efficient to have everyone covered since it means that the people who are actually fighting fires don't have to think "Someone's house is on fire, are they a subscriber?" and instead can think "Someone's house is on fire, we need to go and help."
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
CitadelsGate
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:31:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Of course you can't privatize everything. However that is no excuse for having government interfering with all aspects of society.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 12:24:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 10:31:10 PM, CitadelsGate wrote:
Of course you can't privatize everything. However that is no excuse for having government interfering with all aspects of society.

You're preaching to the choir.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 3:02:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 2:52:30 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 11/24/2013 1:16:41 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:04:57 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
2000 years ago the Roman have to pay for a private insurance company in order to receive fire fighting service, a policy will need to be bought so that your house will be protected when it is on fire. If the Roman who at the time, a bit more civilized than a Zulu could have done that why couldn't we do it now?

So your answer to privatizing an unprofitable business is to make everyone pay for their services? And this is different from taxes how?

You don't get fined or go to jail if you don't pay for it. Why don't people get this?

Sorry, I saw the "have to pay" part and missed the "in order to receive fire fighting service" part. I think it could possibly work, although I would still argue that it is best left up to the government so that firefighters are not running around with maps telling them which houses are ok to put out and which ones should be left to burn because the owner is late on his payment.

Would you like to now recant on your *everything* can be privatized argument, or were you planning to respond to my police example later?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 9:22:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 1:16:41 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:04:57 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
2000 years ago the Roman have to pay for a private insurance company in order to receive fire fighting service, a policy will need to be bought so that your house will be protected when it is on fire. If the Roman who at the time, a bit more civilized than a Zulu could have done that why couldn't we do it now?

So your answer to privatizing an unprofitable business is to make everyone pay for their services? And this is different from taxes how?

It doesn't, except for the fact that you can chose to pay in what you are truly need and not just for a new car for some NEED who think breeding children for more social subsidy is a good family business.

Privatization of everything is possible, if a state business is either inefficient nor unprofitable there will be no one who will compete with you at the first place.

What is your proposal for how we privatize a police force? Do police officers interrupt you in the middle of a mugging, check your ID, see that you're not a paying customer, apologize for the interruption and walk away?

They will probably act like private investigator, doing crime investigation and arresting criminal upon your request for a price or periodic subsidy. They might also offer more secure protection for a household who've paid for their service (because there will be less ground for them to cover).

In any case, I agree to you on this one, a police force is probably not possible to privatize because the state need it to maintain its power but not because it will not function better and less expensive.
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 11:26:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
OK if we are going to have this conversation let's do it right

http://en.wikipedia.org...(economics)

Four types of goods:
Common - nonexcludable, rivalrous
Public - nonexcludable, nonrivalrous
Private - excludable, rivalrous
Club (I don't remember them being called "club" when I took econ :P) - excludable, nonrivalrous

Ancaps try to take all of these and make them private, which is pretty ridiculous. Is the local prison going to run an ad campaign to increase profits by having more people jailed? How do you exclude people from using non-excludable resources?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 1:42:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 9:22:45 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/24/2013 1:16:41 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:04:57 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Privatization of everything is possible, if a state business is either inefficient nor unprofitable there will be no one who will compete with you at the first place.

What is your proposal for how we privatize a police force? Do police officers interrupt you in the middle of a mugging, check your ID, see that you're not a paying customer, apologize for the interruption and walk away?


They will probably act like private investigator, doing crime investigation and arresting criminal upon your request for a price or periodic subsidy. They might also offer more secure protection for a household who've paid for their service (because there will be less ground for them to cover).

In any case, I agree to you on this one, a police force is probably not possible to privatize because the state need it to maintain its power but not because it will not function better and less expensive.

What you're describing is not a police force, but rather professional bodyguards who's motivation is not to serve society but rather to serve those that are paying them. Somehow I don't think that will lead to strong integrity in following the law.

But you probably figured that since you agree, however you are claiming that it will function better? Does my example above of how "police" would theoretically handle a mugging sound like a better functioning police force to you?
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 4:05:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 6:07:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To the AnCaps who think that you can privatize everything, how would a private fire fighting agency function let alone profit?

Considering that a good majority of firefighters are volunteers without pay, and most of these volunteers serve in rural areas where big business wouldn't profit much, privatization wouldn't actually be that difficult.

My colleague once said, government is necessary to do what the private sector can't do efficiently and for a profit.

And my dad once said that the death penalty was fine; who cares what people say about these things if they have nothing of value to add to the discussion.

A fire department is not efficient and it doesn't have a profit motive. If it did, private fire fighting agencies would have an invested interest in a high number of fires in order for their services to be demanded. Apparently these agencies exist as I've seen John Stossel showcase them, but how they operate appears to me unclear.

Densely populated areas are more prone to fire breakouts due to homes being in close proximity to one another, thus increases the chance of fire spreading to other homes. You also have industrial sites that would have to pay out for fire insurance due to the highly hazardous nature of their business. So like I said, in established metropolitan areas private fire companies would make considerable profit, and rural areas/small communities would be mostly handled by voluntary services as it already happens.

There exists many services that are necessary and practical but aren't consumer based, not efficient, and not profitable.

AnCaps will accuse government solutions of being unworkable because they try to be one-size-fits-all, but they make the same mistake by thinking that private solutions can meet the demands of everything and solve all problems. Not everything is a consumer good and that's just a fact.

You can find profit in almost anything. Where there is demand, there will be profit. In a government system, companies earn a profit through taxation without the demand even being present. This wouldn't happen in a de-regulated environment and business would only thrive as long as there was an interested party willing to fund them. Where smaller business might not take risks in providing largely undesirable services for lack of a profit return, a larger company would take it's place, or voluntary services/charities would.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 4:09:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In any case, it's interesting that people automatically assume that no government = more problems because there is no profit drive.

It is entirely possible, and likely, that communities would have a voluntary opt in service and pay into a tax pool that would be distributed based on what that specific community needs.

Government is only necessary because you think it is. Because they've integrated themselves into society, and have their hands in so many cookie jars, that it's impossible to envision an alternative. But there are always alternatives.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 4:23:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You realize that the first historical firefighting operation, run by Marcus Licinius Crassus, was a for-profit venture?

And that there's a county in Tennessee that ran user-fee firefighting for residents of another county?

And there's these guys: http://gazette.com...
?
http://en.wikipedia.org...
You'd be surprised how much of the article is not the taxpayer funded model you see today.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 4:24:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I mean, you seem to acknowledge this on a closer reading, so you're just straight up attempting to deny what you know for a fact to be true. You can privatize firefighting, you don't even dispute this, so why even make the damn thread?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 8:10:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 4:23:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You realize that the first historical firefighting operation, run by Marcus Licinius Crassus, was a for-profit venture?

And that there's a county in Tennessee that ran user-fee firefighting for residents of another county?

And there's these guys: http://gazette.com...
?
http://en.wikipedia.org...
You'd be surprised how much of the article is not the taxpayer funded model you see today.

I don't view firefighters as particularly socialistic in the first place. I mean, they are here but they don't need to be. Let's talk about privatized prisons and military, and see your examples of those lol.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 8:42:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Um... lots of prisons are private right now. They aren't great, but public prisons aren't great-- prisons are bad places.

As for a privatized military... I'm not an ancap. I prefer user fees to the police (military are a cost of doing protecting police jurisdiction, not a service to nonstate actors).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 9:05:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 8:42:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Um... lots of prisons are private right now. They aren't great, but public prisons aren't great-- prisons are bad places.

As for a privatized military... I'm not an ancap. I prefer user fees to the police (military are a cost of doing protecting police jurisdiction, not a service to nonstate actors).

Yes, but are they better, or are they worse?
rtweger86
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 9:39:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 6:22:21 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
If the poor can't afford fire services, then they obviously must not have anything valuable enough to be worth saving.

Ya, because no artist ever produced anything of value while poor.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 10:30:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 9:39:56 PM, rtweger86 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:22:21 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
If the poor can't afford fire services, then they obviously must not have anything valuable enough to be worth saving.

Ya, because no artist ever produced anything of value while poor.

Let's do it for the sake of the prodigy paupers. Why didn't I think of that?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 10:32:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 9:05:10 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 11/25/2013 8:42:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Um... lots of prisons are private right now. They aren't great, but public prisons aren't great-- prisons are bad places.

As for a privatized military... I'm not an ancap. I prefer user fees to the police (military are a cost of doing protecting police jurisdiction, not a service to nonstate actors).

Yes, but are they better, or are they worse?
Well, public prison unions are raping the treasury of California. Not sure who private prison anything does that to, so better it would seem.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 10:39:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 4:05:06 PM, InvictusManeo wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:07:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To the AnCaps who think that you can privatize everything, how would a private fire fighting agency function let alone profit?

Considering that a good majority of firefighters are volunteers without pay, and most of these volunteers serve in rural areas where big business wouldn't profit much, privatization wouldn't actually be that difficult.

Fighting fires in rural areas are either a much smaller, and simpler task than fires in cities or the fire in the rural area is so great that a volunteer fire fighting force doesn't have the resources to put out a forest fire.

My colleague once said, government is necessary to do what the private sector can't do efficiently and for a profit.

And my dad once said that the death penalty was fine; who cares what people say about these things if they have nothing of value to add to the discussion.

This was not about caring what people say. I posted a poignant point, cited where it came from, and used it to set up the rest of my argument. I suggest taking a formal course in critical thinking where you will learn to properly analyze and deconstruct written arguments.

A fire department is not efficient and it doesn't have a profit motive. If it did, private fire fighting agencies would have an invested interest in a high number of fires in order for their services to be demanded. Apparently these agencies exist as I've seen John Stossel showcase them, but how they operate appears to me unclear.

Densely populated areas are more prone to fire breakouts due to homes being in close proximity to one another, thus increases the chance of fire spreading to other homes. You also have industrial sites that would have to pay out for fire insurance due to the highly hazardous nature of their business. So like I said, in established metropolitan areas private fire companies would make considerable profit, and rural areas/small communities would be mostly handled by voluntary services as it already happens.

Whenever I see the massive fire outbreaks, I see the government fire fighting equipment out there quenching the fires, not private agencies or volunteers.

There exists many services that are necessary and practical but aren't consumer based, not efficient, and not profitable.

AnCaps will accuse government solutions of being unworkable because they try to be one-size-fits-all, but they make the same mistake by thinking that private solutions can meet the demands of everything and solve all problems. Not everything is a consumer good and that's just a fact.

You can find profit in almost anything. Where there is demand, there will be profit.

Wrong. Not if the service isn't efficient. Courts sure as hell ain't profitable. Some things just shouldn't be for profit. There can be no justice when the man with more money gets to determine who's innocent and who gets thrown in a cage.

In a government system, companies earn a profit through taxation without the demand even being present. This wouldn't happen in a de-regulated environment and business would only thrive as long as there was an interested party willing to fund them.

I support deregulation.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 3:09:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 1:42:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/25/2013 9:22:45 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/24/2013 1:16:41 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:04:57 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Privatization of everything is possible, if a state business is either inefficient nor unprofitable there will be no one who will compete with you at the first place.

What is your proposal for how we privatize a police force? Do police officers interrupt you in the middle of a mugging, check your ID, see that you're not a paying customer, apologize for the interruption and walk away?


They will probably act like private investigator, doing crime investigation and arresting criminal upon your request for a price or periodic subsidy. They might also offer more secure protection for a household who've paid for their service (because there will be less ground for them to cover).

In any case, I agree to you on this one, a police force is probably not possible to privatize because the state need it to maintain its power but not because it will not function better and less expensive.

What you're describing is not a police force, but rather professional bodyguards who's motivation is not to serve society but rather to serve those that are paying them. Somehow I don't think that will lead to strong integrity in following the law.

But you probably figured that since you agree, however you are claiming that it will function better? Does my example above of how "police" would theoretically handle a mugging sound like a better functioning police force to you?

How can they can only check everybody who venture in to a private property own by a customer who request their protection, I don't how can it be so bad. Plus, you would sure have better security than paying your tax for the police who rarely ever venture out of their station.

Perhaps it is better in the US, but from where I came from I can't even remember the last time that a police force can manage to solve a simple thievery case. If I am to pay for them I rather pay for a security company to take care of my house (and actually I already did that, would be good if I can stop paying my tax to those incompetence, lazy pig)

If you have the money, I think it is always better to pay for a service you need yourself. And if you don't have that money, well you're not deserve it.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 3:33:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 3:09:44 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/25/2013 1:42:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/25/2013 9:22:45 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/24/2013 1:16:41 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:04:57 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Privatization of everything is possible, if a state business is either inefficient nor unprofitable there will be no one who will compete with you at the first place.

What is your proposal for how we privatize a police force? Do police officers interrupt you in the middle of a mugging, check your ID, see that you're not a paying customer, apologize for the interruption and walk away?


They will probably act like private investigator, doing crime investigation and arresting criminal upon your request for a price or periodic subsidy. They might also offer more secure protection for a household who've paid for their service (because there will be less ground for them to cover).

In any case, I agree to you on this one, a police force is probably not possible to privatize because the state need it to maintain its power but not because it will not function better and less expensive.

What you're describing is not a police force, but rather professional bodyguards who's motivation is not to serve society but rather to serve those that are paying them. Somehow I don't think that will lead to strong integrity in following the law.

But you probably figured that since you agree, however you are claiming that it will function better? Does my example above of how "police" would theoretically handle a mugging sound like a better functioning police force to you?

How can they can only check everybody who venture in to a private property own by a customer who request their protection, I don't how can it be so bad. Plus, you would sure have better security than paying your tax for the police who rarely ever venture out of their station.

Perhaps it is better in the US, but from where I came from I can't even remember the last time that a police force can manage to solve a simple thievery case. If I am to pay for them I rather pay for a security company to take care of my house (and actually I already did that, would be good if I can stop paying my tax to those incompetence, lazy pig)

If you have the money, I think it is always better to pay for a service you need yourself. And if you don't have that money, well you're not deserve it.

Your basic argument is that the police suck, therefore any system is better. Sorry they suck in your country, but they work just fine where I am.

You still never addressed the point of the mugging example. There is no feasible way for the streets to be protected if the police force were privatized. First of all they wouldn't even be a police force, they would basically be a professional gang roaming the streets looking out for their clients. They would have no authority or motivation to take control of a riot, or to stop a rape without first interrupting to see if it is one of their clients. That is not a better functioning force no matter how bad yours is.

And your comment that not having money = not deserving protection is absolute nonsense. Not only is that morally wrong, but just plain stupid in terms of expecting a society to function.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 3:50:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your basic argument is that the police suck, therefore any system is better. Sorry they suck in your country, but they work just fine where I am.

You still never addressed the point of the mugging example. There is no feasible way for the streets to be protected if the police force were privatized. First of all they wouldn't even be a police force, they would basically be a professional gang roaming the streets looking out for their clients. They would have no authority or motivation to take control of a riot, or to stop a rape without first interrupting to see if it is one of their clients. That is not a better functioning force no matter how bad yours is.

Sorry but from where I came from, I hardly ever seen police protecting any thing on the street except occasionally jamming traffic which is already bad enough.

Neither they are of any use when there is riot on the street, that is why we deploy a military whenever the riot start to be dangerous or out of control.

And your comment that not having money = not deserving protection is absolute nonsense. Not only is that morally wrong, but just plain stupid in terms of expecting a society to function.

Why? security caused money you should at least contribute something of value to it if you are going to receive their service. Even a man without anything but his life can contribute his labor by joining a part of the force itself.

I don't really see why those who refuse to work and without money are deserving anything that the society have to offer.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 3:53:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
beside, didn't I say that in the end I agree with you that police forces can't be privatized (because the state need it)