Message from @Werlf
Discord ID: 509499534087290903
That's EXACTLY the metric I'm basing this off of.
Total gov't control vs private solutions and voluntary interactions
For the record, ive thought of these things a long time before. That's why im conviced theyre wrong
@Fitzydog
>detriot
>police
what police?
<:oof:494878589406150657>
The only thing they protect and serve is the democratic mayor
Because im sure the best police in the world are private. After all the worst are government so duuuh
Yes, some of the best ARE private
Name 1
The Pinkerton's made a name for themselves
It has to gaurd more then 1 dudes house fyi
Hell, they were the secret service before we had one
so goys, what do you think about Smash Bros DLC
Pinkertons? Didnt they illegally bust unions? Great.
I'd like to see Jamal Khashoggi's liquefied corpse as a character
Good example.
"illegally"
Actually didnt think of that.
@Werlf who's that?
Im not joking when I say good example. I just dont see how thats any better then what we have now.
And it was illigal wasnt it? Thats why they didnt use state police. I dont know much of it myself
Because these options are not monoplized based on geographic area, and thus have to perform better if they wish to stay in business.
Something the police does NOT have to do
Main issue with political views which advocate essentially the toppling of an entire system and replacing it with something else is that it is so fundamental one cannot discuss anything else. There's no avenue to talk about improving the current system when surrounded by people who want to just wipe it away. The idea that someone is competent enough to be correct in their choice of what to replace a system that has been slowly developed for centuries with is just absurd. It's the age old problem of comparison, in that people compare the state of affairs in the present with an imaginary wish, which by nature has to ignore most of the variables and assume x would really be like y if their beliefs were practiced. I don't think you can advocate the destruction of the western system without being a clown, frankly. It's barely even worth addressing.
I didn't advocate for toppling anything, fyi
I just want the chance to put a govt monopolized institution out of business lol
Im surprised you dont have a better example then a group that busted some unions on behalf of industrialists as the basis for public security
Unless the pinkertons were patrolling more neighborhoods then ive been led to believe
There's not much market for private security when it's monopolized with tax subsidies
So we basically have to abolish police and pray an adequate substitute will arrive during the inevitable riots?
I mean. Im not against it on principle but it seems a bit... Unlikely
Did I say abolish? No
Just allow me to choose who I pay
Right. And how will those companies estabish themselves?
The police. Put the police out of "business". Because it is run by the government? Security, the administration and protection of law has to be a government prerogative or the system loses its integrity and public accountability. Corporations are profit-driven institutions, having them play the role of policing is basically the same deal as having wealthy tribal rulers competing with eachother to have what they want with regards to the law. It is already bad enough of a necessary evil to have lobbying, never mind turning over such a vital institution and service to the whims of private enterprise. A government with a monopoly on law and force is the reason secure commerce can take place to begin with.
Like any other newly created business.
But I'm sure the larger existing private security firms would fill that niche first
Lobbying isnt a nessisary evil imo but its one were gonna have to live with for the foreseeable future.
So how would you propse we slowly faze out public security? @Fitzydog
Surely you don't want to drop the police without any adiqute replacements already beeing established
They can phase out or not, that's irrelevant.