Message from @Roarey
Discord ID: 509502788229660672
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.
Nobody can play a game without the rules being clear up front, without knowing what will happen if you do x or don't do y. If the enforcement of law is an enterprise, then it is competitive, which means it is by necessity unpredictable. Unpredictable application of law is what one advocates if one doesn't want law to exist to begin with. People need to know what the deal is before they can engage in participating.
Everybody HAS to
That's common game theory
And that's why we have governments
That's.... not a logical argument. Just a "X, thus Y"
Its essentially relevant. If we were to abolish the police right now there would be no substantial replacements and thus no way for people to get protection in the foreseeable future
Maybe in a month firms have their foot in the door. What do we do in the mean time
Once again, I have not said to abolish anything.
I ASSUME the original policing force would go out of business unless they changed their business plan lol
December 6th, 2007
For all I know, some small towns keep their local policing force
How would you put it out of business? You would be privatizing the exiting police then?
No, I am saying "Let people opt out of local police, and pay for their own local security"
But if the government is still paying for local police, why would they opt out of free police?
It began
*Who's paying?*
You would have to privatize the existing structure
@Banks=Gay No, your property taxes are paying for your police
To make it clear, then, the alternatives to a government are numerous, and far less effective with regards to a functioning society. Governments in the west are publicly accountable bodies that set the rules of all the social games. And they have to have the clout to ensure those rules are followed and those games can take place to begin with. A multitude of competing corporations cannot serve that function better than a government. It is why governments have evolved over the centuries, slowly improving and gaining complexity. There is not going to be some blanket "fix" for the issues we have with governments. Companies are not moral or ethical actors. We can have such a rich economy because there are rules everyone has to abide by, if companies decided the rules then there'd be no consistency whatsoever. It'd be worse than what we have now.