So... how 'bout that private police force eh?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-04-2015, 10:53 AM
RE: So... how 'bout that private police force eh?
(14-04-2015 10:50 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Public employees are theoretically accountable to the whole public.

Yea, but the tax payer that pays for their fuck-ups doesn't care enough.
Shareholders losing their actual money however...

Quote:They would be less accountable; period.

Accountable to less people but not 'less' accountable because the people they are accountable too (shareholders) have a lot of power over them where as individual tax payers do not have a whole lot of power.

Anyway, the consequences would be the same if it was cop or private employee. If you shoot and kill someone simply because they're black you're gonna go to jail. Unless you're a cop though, than you'll get a slap on the wrist and told to go home and have a rest.

Quote:One might, I suppose, argue that a private system which works perfectly is better than a public system which does not. Sure, I guess. How the hell is that even remotely relevant to anything?

I'm not saying that it done privately would mean it would be done perfectly.

Quote:Which brings us to the regulation and oversight you also mention above. If "private" policing agencies are subject to government oversight and bound by government regulation then what's the point of them being private?

Regulation is cheaper. 1 dude with a clip board versus an entire police force.
Private company bares the costs of employment and running costs (cars, petrol etc..). Private companies bare the costs of any wrong doing (resulting in lawsuits etc..). These people would need less training compared to cops (because they would be JUST traffic control). It would allow for police to focus on other areas such as homicide. It would take pressure off police to prevent car crashes and shit allowing them to focus on other shit. Tax revenue rather than tax burden.

Sorry Mate, you are just flat out wrong here. Everywhere this has been tried it is an unmitigated disaster that leads to defrauding the people they are, in theory supposed to be serving. Some things should not be for profit and public safety is one of them.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
14-04-2015, 10:54 AM
RE: So... how 'bout that private police force eh?
(14-04-2015 02:36 AM)Nurse Wrote:  Back in the day when my ex was on patrol he had to do traffic stops - they're actually quite dangerous. You'd have to be doing 20mph over or greater for him to write anything other than a warning, or be a total dick during the stop (unless it were a school zone). His preference was pulling over expired tags - you can't renew your tag when you have a warrant for your arrest. He made some major arrests that way...

My girlfriend is married to a cop. I have to give her soooo much credit. No way could I do it. I'd be worried all the time.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
14-04-2015, 11:08 AM
RE: So... how 'bout that private police force eh?
Quote:Because ideally you want the law to be enforced by public servants who are operating for the public good, and both beholden and accountable to the public.

Private corporations are none of those things.

Says who?
Again, it doesn't matter if a cop gives me a ticket or some private employee. A ticket is a ticket. Having public servants for the sake of public servants doesn't make sense.

A good example is parking. That's all done by private companies, it used to be done by cops back in the day.

Quote:Why do we attempt to control traffic? For safety, because it's for the public good. We don't control traffic and place limits on it for the purpose of making a profit, but rather for the betterment of the public.

Both public safety and profit can be achieved.

Quote:The public is not well server when they're given a lower priority than turning a profit for private coffers, and at their expense no less.

You're looking at it wrong. You're looking at it from an emotional point. Look at it just straight on. What do traffic cops do? They sit on the side of the road and pull people over as they speed past. They issue a ticket and wait for the next person.

It doesn't matter if that's done by a cop or a private employee, the effects are the same.

Quote:Did you even read the article about the automatic traffic camera scandal in Chicago?

It's not enough to 'not speed', whenever those in control of the system have a profit incentive to 'tweak' the system slightly to generate greater profits, catching people for speeding who in fact were not actually speeding.

We call that fraud muffs.

Exactly, fraud. I'm not saying it will be perfect, it will have lumps of course but lumps can be ironed out.

Quote:But deterrence is no longer the goal, profits are the goal; and that leads to the aforementioned corruption, kickbacks, and fraud. Especially when innocent people are issued citation in the name of further corporate profits.

That is not justice.

I don't buy that private employees are more likely to accept a bribe compared to public employees. Some people will accept, others wont. Public or private.

Quote:Doesn't matter muffs

Yes it does, prisons =/= traffic control.

Quote:my point is and will remain, that you do not want to have a profit motive behind people trusted to enforce the law. It doesn't matter whether it's the issuing of citations or the housing of inmates; corporate profits should never be a deciding factor when adjudicating the application of the law in the name of the public trust.

In this case profits are directly related to public safety. The harder the law is enforced the less likely people are to speed.

Quote:No. When the public is the victim of fraud that benefits the profits of private corporations, the tax paying public does in fact pay. Facepalm

Just like when a public cop shoots an unarmed black man and the family sue the state. The tax payer pays for that too.

Quote:Right, let's give rent-a-cops the ability to order citations and collect fines. Nothing can go wrong there, I'm sure...

Not collect, just issue fines. Collection can be left to debt collectors.
Lets instead give public cops guns and shit, nothing can wrong there, I'm sure... unless you're black.

Quote:The only way to entice a private company to overtake a public service is if there is money to be made, they have to be incentivized by profits. Whereas a government operation does not have a profit motive. If it can be regulated and enforced, why have a private entity over a public one? Why have a group of people, not beholden or accountable to the public and charged with the goal of making money above all else, be a better option than just regulating public employees and entities?

saves public money and resources and frees up police to focus on other things.

Quote:Thanks for proving my point. Dodgy

What? Your point isn't made just because I don't have a business plan in place.

Quote:Unless they're issued punitively or erroneously, both of which are far more likely when your primary goal is to increase profits rather than serve the public trust.

Thus the cameras. You can get cameras that can take pictures of speeding cars too.

Quote:No, they now just have an incentive to bribe public officials in charge of oversight, as seen in the massive bribery and kickback scandal in Chicago that you seemingly failed to read. Plus, the men high enough up in the corporations to make and profit from these actions are almost never held accountable.

And cops that shoot unarmed black guys are held accountable?

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 11:29 AM
RE: So... how 'bout that private police force eh?
(13-04-2015 11:10 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  So... how 'bout it?
I'm gonna assume everyone is against it because you lot haven't actually thought it through and are all anti-business douche bag leftist commie bastards.

So in the spirit of bipartisanship I will offer up my thoughts on the matter.


I think private companies could completely take over traffic control (speeding tickets and shit). And could possibly, along side a public police force, jump on the war on drugs bandwagon.

The war on drugs was a stupid idea to begin with, we don't need any more bozos on that bandwagon thank you.

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 11:33 AM
RE: So... how 'bout that private police force eh?
(14-04-2015 10:50 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Public employees are theoretically accountable to the whole public.

Yea, but the tax payer that pays for their fuck-ups doesn't care enough.
Shareholders losing their actual money however...

Most shareholders are effectively powerless, due to the existence of large voting blocs. And...

(14-04-2015 10:50 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:They would be less accountable; period.

Accountable to less people but not 'less' accountable because the people they are accountable too (shareholders) have a lot of power over them where as individual tax payers do not have a whole lot of power.

Anyway, the consequences would be the same if it was cop or private employee. If you shoot and kill someone simply because they're black you're gonna go to jail. Unless you're a cop though, than you'll get a slap on the wrist and told to go home and have a rest.

Glossing over where you're apparently claiming that being accountable to fewer people is somehow not a problem...

No, they are literally less accountable. The actual legal accountability of a corporation to its shareholders is far, far more minimal than that of democratic governments to their citizens.

(14-04-2015 10:50 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:One might, I suppose, argue that a private system which works perfectly is better than a public system which does not. Sure, I guess. How the hell is that even remotely relevant to anything?

I'm not saying that it done privately would mean it would be done perfectly.

Then you should probably stop arguing isolated real-world negatives against purely hypothetical positives.
(see the above, where you contrast the wholly unsubstantiated "fact" that citizens "don't care" to hold public employees accountable with the wholly unsubstantiated assertion that all shareholders would)

(14-04-2015 10:50 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Which brings us to the regulation and oversight you also mention above. If "private" policing agencies are subject to government oversight and bound by government regulation then what's the point of them being private?

Regulation is cheaper. 1 dude with a clip board versus an entire police force.
Private company bares the costs of employment and running costs (cars, petrol etc..). Private companies bare the costs of any wrong doing (resulting in lawsuits etc..). These people would need less training compared to cops (because they would be JUST traffic control). It would allow for police to focus on other areas such as homicide. It would take pressure off police to prevent car crashes and shit allowing them to focus on other shit. Tax revenue rather than tax burden.

Pretty much every example of privatisation of government services argues against this.

Not that "1 dude with a clipboard" isn't a pretty darn disingenuous comparison anyway.
(hint: no, establishing, monitoring, maintaining, and enforcing even minimal regulatory oversight is a lot more intensive than that)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
14-04-2015, 12:29 PM (This post was last modified: 14-04-2015 02:12 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: So... how 'bout that private police force eh?
(14-04-2015 11:08 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Because ideally you want the law to be enforced by public servants who are operating for the public good, and both beholden and accountable to the public.

Private corporations are none of those things.
Says who?
Again, it doesn't matter if a cop gives me a ticket or some private employee. A ticket is a ticket. Having public servants for the sake of public servants doesn't make sense.

A good example is parking. That's all done by private companies, it used to be done by cops back in the day.


Actually, it's still done by cops... Facepalm

Not everyone on the force is a homicide detective or a SWAT team member. There are lesser trained and lesser paid officers of the law that do almost nothing but traffic violations. They already exist.

It's when you replace them with private employees and corporations with a profit incentive that you start to see rampant fraud against the public for private gain.


(14-04-2015 11:08 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Why do we attempt to control traffic? For safety, because it's for the public good. We don't control traffic and place limits on it for the purpose of making a profit, but rather for the betterment of the public.
Both public safety and profit can be achieved.


Profit should not be a goal to begin with.

Profits unduly incentivize people to commit fraud, especially when how much you make is tied to how much fine revenue you bring in. If you can make more money by issuing more fines, you will go out of your way to bend and stretch (if not outright break) the law for your own benefit.


(14-04-2015 11:08 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:The public is not well server when they're given a lower priority than turning a profit for private coffers, and at their expense no less.
You're looking at it wrong. You're looking at it from an emotional point. Look at it just straight on. What do traffic cops do? They sit on the side of the road and pull people over as they speed past. They issue a ticket and wait for the next person.

It doesn't matter if that's done by a cop or a private employee, the effects are the same.


No, you're entirely missing the fucking point. Facepalm

Cops don't get payed more if they bring in more citations, nor should they be pushed to reach quotas. Why? Because they're there to serve the public, above and beyond any desire for revenue. Private contractors are there to make money first and foremost, and they will do so even at the expense of the public. Nothing is gained by going from public to private, while it entails plenty of downsides.


(14-04-2015 11:08 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Did you even read the article about the automatic traffic camera scandal in Chicago?

It's not enough to 'not speed', whenever those in control of the system have a profit incentive to 'tweak' the system slightly to generate greater profits, catching people for speeding who in fact were not actually speeding.

We call that fraud muffs.
Exactly, fraud. I'm not saying it will be perfect, it will have lumps of course but lumps can be ironed out.


Problem: Private for-profit corporations are explicitly incentivized in a way as to encourage fraud and exploitation of the public.

Public entities, being already tax-payer funded, are not.


(14-04-2015 11:08 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:But deterrence is no longer the goal, profits are the goal; and that leads to the aforementioned corruption, kickbacks, and fraud. Especially when innocent people are issued citation in the name of further corporate profits.

That is not justice.
I don't buy that private employees are more likely to accept a bribe compared to public employees. Some people will accept, others wont. Public or private.


Once again muffs, do you simply not have a fucking clue how fraud, bribery, and corporate kickbacks work?

Neither system is immune to corruption, but one system explicitly encourages, enables, and incentiveizes it while the other does not.


(14-04-2015 11:08 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Doesn't matter muffs
Yes it does, prisons =/= traffic control.


Both are matters of public trust. Neither should be operated for profit.


(14-04-2015 11:08 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:my point is and will remain, that you do not want to have a profit motive behind people trusted to enforce the law. It doesn't matter whether it's the issuing of citations or the housing of inmates; corporate profits should never be a deciding factor when adjudicating the application of the law in the name of the public trust.
In this case profits are directly related to public safety. The harder the law is enforced the less likely people are to speed.


No, the more it is incentivized with profit, the more likely it is to be abused to gain said profits; all at the expense of the public. A public traffic cop doesn't have a paid reason to bend the law in favor of increasing citations, but a private one does; it's called his paycheck.


(14-04-2015 11:08 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:No. When the public is the victim of fraud that benefits the profits of private corporations, the tax paying public does in fact pay. Facepalm
Just like when a public cop shoots an unarmed black man and the family sue the state. The tax payer pays for that too.


There's a distinct difference between being the victim of fraud and being a tax payer, but nice try. Also I've notice you pull this red herring shit quite often, and I do tire of it.


(14-04-2015 11:08 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Right, let's give rent-a-cops the ability to order citations and collect fines. Nothing can go wrong there, I'm sure...
Not collect, just issue fines. Collection can be left to debt collectors.


More private contractors! Facepalm


(14-04-2015 11:08 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Lets instead give public cops guns and shit, nothing can wrong there, I'm sure... unless you're black.


So your solution is to give them to less accountable private employees? Are you trying extra hard to be stupid or what? Gasp


(14-04-2015 11:08 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:The only way to entice a private company to overtake a public service is if there is money to be made, they have to be incentivized by profits. Whereas a government operation does not have a profit motive. If it can be regulated and enforced, why have a private entity over a public one? Why have a group of people, not beholden or accountable to the public and charged with the goal of making money above all else, be a better option than just regulating public employees and entities?
saves public money and resources and frees up police to focus on other things.


No, it never does.

Private prisons? Cost overruns. Turing over IRS debt collecting to private companies? Cost overruns. Issuing traffic citations? Rampant fraud. The extra oversight needed to regulate these private entities? Extra costs above just doing it yourself.


(14-04-2015 11:08 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Thanks for proving my point. Dodgy
What? Your point isn't made just because I don't have a business plan in place.


You're arguing for an alternative that suffers from a fundamental problem that you have yet to even remotely supply an answer for.

It's not my fault you're that out of touch with reality.


(14-04-2015 11:08 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Unless they're issued punitively or erroneously, both of which are far more likely when your primary goal is to increase profits rather than serve the public trust.
Thus the cameras. You can get cameras that can take pictures of speeding cars too.


Which was already open to rampant abuse and fraud, as per Chicago.


(14-04-2015 11:08 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:No, they now just have an incentive to bribe public officials in charge of oversight, as seen in the massive bribery and kickback scandal in Chicago that you seemingly failed to read. Plus, the men high enough up in the corporations to make and profit from these actions are almost never held accountable.
And cops that shoot unarmed black guys are held accountable?


Really? Two red herrings in one post? The first one wasn't enough for you?

Grow the fuck up. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
14-04-2015, 04:35 PM
RE: So... how 'bout that private police force eh?
(13-04-2015 11:54 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(13-04-2015 11:21 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I thought that was gonna come up.
Prisons are different to speeding tickets. If you speed and get caught you get issued a ticket and some demerits on your licence and that's it. It doesn't matter if it's a cop or a private cop doing that.

Prisons are different because rehabilitation and shit.

No, the point being that you do not want a profit motive behind servicing the law. Put a private corporation beholden to share-holders in charge of the issuing and collection of citations and fines, and they're now incentivized to issue more citations to increase the revenue from fines. Now the system isn't there to serve deterrence or safety or the public good, now it's there to generate profits. It is this aspect which they share with for-profit prisons, their pursuit of profit at the expense of the public good masquerading as a public service.

I agree completely. Reminded me of this:



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Smercury44's post
24-04-2015, 03:31 PM
RE: So... how 'bout that private police force eh?
The Waldo, Florida police department was notorious for speed traps through the small town. They were banking on about half the town's annual revenues in speeding tickets. They had speeding ticket quotas. (They've been disbanded as a result - http://www.wfla.com/story/26671583/waldo...ta-scandal ) How would a private, for-profit company be any different/better? IMO, they'd probably be worse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: