@Roarey You're going to need to provide a source that alternatives are less effective

History.

***ARE THEY GETTING PAYED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NOT. IM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF YOUVE THOUGHT HOW YOU WOULD GO ABOUT THIS AND I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE.***

Would you privatize existing security? Sell off the police? Then let the market work out?

Is that correct?

If you're advocating a colossal change you are the one who has to demonstrate its efficacy, not me.

They're getting paid by the specific tax payers in certain areas that are still using the gov't police force.

Other areas of town may have opted out of paying for the gov't police via their property taxes and decided to pay someone else.

You dont have to be a bastion of nuance ffs. Its just making this hard to pin down.

All I have to do is look at how people in the past have tried to live together and see what happened. The past is worse than what we have today, in practically any way one cares to measure it.

@Banks=Gay I'm litearlly drawing an example right now lol

There's no way I'm going to advocate fucking with it in a fundamental way.

Nvm. I dont think I can get across anything to you. Lets just stop here. Its getting nowhere

Private policing is basically power over law decided by wealth. Like old fiefdoms and dukedoms. Each area having effectively an aristocracy.

It's fucking ludicrous.

idk, this seems really easy to grasp

It is, and also easy to see how bad an idea it is

Well, I was talking to big soy at first, not you, tbh lol

If corruption and unfairness in government policing is bad, you only multiply that with private enterprise in policing.

Same issues and more exist, only now you've got lots of competing police forces. It's a complete joke.

I think you're unintentionally strawmanning my argument tbh

No I'm being realistic about it. You haven't actually detailed an argument. You've advocated a concept and I've argued against it.

Your just not explaining it well. I think I see how it would work, ive reserched the idea in the past but I dont want to misrepresent you so im just gonna stop.

You're advocating private enterprise managing policing. And it is moronic, no straw manning required.

You're the one calling it "moronic" without even grasping what I'm saying yet.

So you're advocating private policing without advocating it?

See? You don't even know what I'm saying, yet you're name calling lol

Don't see what's to grasp. Doesn't matter what your plan is for making it happen when one cannot get around the simple fact that whatever criticisms one has of government police forces, they don't disappear by virtue of being privately owned. And multiple police forces operating under multiple sets of rules and multiple directions/intentions means the policing of law becomes even more complicated and messy than it already is.

You're making a bunch of claims out of hand with no evidence.

Why do you say that criticisms don't "disappear" if something is privatized?

When's the last time you said to yourself "Damn, my local government sure is efficient and hard working at what they do!"? lol

Okay, let me sum up again since you obviously can't read what I've written.

I am saying, let people OPT-OUT of LOCAL POLICE, by CHOOSING to use their TAX DOLLARS for a COMPETING SERVICE

*Would you like to see a map of how this might look? I made an easy to use diagram for you.*

The issue is. Without the state hokding the monopoly on force it will devolve to anarchy.

You're the one advocating this massive change and you think I'm the one who needs to give you evidence? Everybody can recognize the shortcomings of our systems, they are obvious and there's always improvements to be made. You want to change it at a fundamental level, and you haven't given any solid reason for even making the attempt. So you advocate a radical change to policing because, like everyone else, you can see problems with it, and make the assumption, which you haven't substantiated, that the alternative you want would be better. My point is that doing such a thing is at best woefully irresponsible.

As well the state has no requiremebt to accept anyone else into the judicial system

*Massive change?*

The "massive change" was when we took away people's ability to choose who protects their property for them

There is a reason security details pass off to law enforcement

You don't think private ownership of police is a massive change?

And arnt just vigilantes

I think the monopolization on property protection is a recent invention in the US

There hasnt been personal choice like that since tribal times

Only about 100 years actually

No before the us the brits did it. Before that local lords, before that romans