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

There have always been "police forces" in different appearance

Cities used to offer charters to private police units all the time

This is like noticing a small fire in one's house and deciding the way to tackle it is to throw gasoline at it

Security guards. With less power than actual state enforcement.

Well, this IS the tail end of an argument about the state in general, so take what you will

They always defered to the states inforcement

Hell even just over 100 years ago. The pinkertons would drop off to the local sheriffs

You always had the choice of private security. But they always had to bow to state law enforcement.

Fun fact about old use chartered law enforcement. Usually they would be bribed by political parties to harrass opponents. A cornerstone of machine politics back in the day they were

All you end up doing really is maximising the corruption which presently exists and making the system several multitudes more complicated. And you reduce oversight almost completely.

Thing is, you're probably all correct.

What's important is, is to always look for alternative solutions to things you take for granted.

Sometime's I swear; It's like trying to question Christians about the existence of Jesus or something. Freaking *hostile* lmao

Would you retards go to <#372513679964635138>

Solutions to problems need to be discussed, but when a suggested alternative is obviously worse and involves an unrealistic expectation of radically reorganising the established system, there's honestly not much point in broaching it. It's just a waste of time.

It's not "obviously worse", it's just unorthodox and you have trouble thinking outside the box. W/e