Should Police Services Be Privatized?

[fatra2]

Hi there,

I have been flying over the different posts here. This one really strikes me:

Is it morally wrong to make everyone pay a tax to support universal police? Or should only the people who can afford it get police coverage?

Fact is that there are systems like that, where the richer people pay taxes, and where everyone works the community. This system is called communism, and did not work any better than capitalism. As a matter, I even believe that capitalism is one of the best system that can be. Of course, it has its flaws, but all in all in pretty good so far.

Cheers

 

[Al68]

Did I say enslave them? I am saying that it is part of the ethical philosophy of physicians that all persons who need it should be treated. Doctors are possessed of skills important to the health and survival of his fellow man which are difficult to acquire and not many people have the knack for. To withhold these skills from people who need them and are unable to afford to pay is considered unethical.

Sorry, my bad! I (falsely) assumed you were referring to a political belief involving the use of government force.

I agree with you here, within reason, it would be unethical for a doctor to refuse needed treatment, assuming that it's reasonable burden.

But obviously, doctors have no choice but to "withhold" treatment to many people in need simply because they just don't have unlimited time and resources.

 

[Al68]

As a matter, I even believe that capitalism is one of the best system that can be. Of course, it has its flaws, but all in all in pretty good so far.

Capitalism is the worst thing ever for poor and working people. Well, except for every other economic system ever tried.

 

[fatra2]

Capitalism is the worst thing ever for poor and working people.

Instead of simply stating that it is the worst thing ever, why don't you give examples on how to improve it?

I still believe that capitalism is not that much of a bad system. Unless being terribly unfortunate, it leaves the chances to anyone and everyone to make a better life for him/herself. Nothing is stopping you from persuing a great career at the stock markets, or to develop a business with a great new idea, or get yourself involved in saving the world from alien invasion. The choices are there, you just need to take your chance.

It does happen that people are very unfortunate. This is why a bit of socialism can never really harm in a society.

Cheers

 

[Al68]

Capitalism is the worst thing ever for poor and working people.

Instead of simply stating that it is the worst thing ever, why don't you give examples on how to improve it?

I still believe that capitalism is not that much of a bad system. Unless being terribly unfortunate, it leaves the chances to anyone and everyone to make a better life for him/herself. Nothing is stopping you from persuing a great career at the stock markets, or to develop a business with a great new idea, or get yourself involved in saving the world from alien invasion. The choices are there, you just need to take your chance.

It does happen that people are very unfortunate. This is why a bit of socialism can never really harm in a society.

Cheers

LOL. I think you missed my second sentence:

Well, except for every other economic system ever tried.

 

[fatra2]

Yes I got that one. Fact is that it is the best that we have. But if you can think of a better system: shoot.

Cheers

 

[Nebula815]

Yes I got that one. Fact is that it is the best that we have. But if you can think of a better system: shoot.

Cheers

Capitalism isn't so much a system as it is just reality. The key is the make sure you have a society with the proper laws and institutions so that it works properly.

 

[fatra2]

Capitalism isn't so much a system as it is just reality.

There, I disagree. Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. In this idea, I want to believe that individuals know what is best for themselves. Therefore, and after reading many papers and books on the different social system, I became a fervent supporter of capitalism. It leaves society to itself.

I am not saying that only good comes out of it, but it is the best ideology possible.

Cheers

 

[kote]

Regarding the difference between public law enforcement and other "industries," we need our police departments to be public because they are essentially above the law. The goal of private business is just to make a profit. In many situations, this has the auxiliary effect of enhancing productivity and improving service over the long term, making it a better choice than the alternative socialist or communist solutions, for example.

If the goal of the police department were to make a profit, however, we would surely have openly unequal enforcement of laws and rampant corruption. There is a strict conflict of interest between making a profit and fair enforcement of the law. There would be no one to regulate the regulators. The private police force in power would stop market forces from creating any competition and would be free to do as they pleased.

Of course, a public model doesn't ensure a lack of corruption, and a private model doesn't ensure perfect productivity or a 100% focus on profit. There is no such thing as an ideally perfect public or private company, so let's skip the ideology. Not only should we have both public and private companies, but no company is perfectly aligned with public or private interests.

There is also a continuum between public and private business models, determined by regulation. Businesses are criminally liable if they focus 100% on profit and ignore their government mandated regulations. Think about lawyers. There is a reason that law firms are not allowed to be corporations. Do they still go after profit? Of course. So do employees in public companies. But lawyers are thrown in jail if they ignore their public duty and throw a case to make a buck. All private business is similarly regulated to some degree.

Public vs private shouldn't be any more than a practical business decision. Which level of regulation, over a continuous spectrum, will best serve our public interest?

It gets more complicated when you have things like a public option in a private industry. Practically, that seems like a recipe for creating an unfair market to me. I don't see what the benefit is supposed to be. The entire industry needs to be reshaped, and I don't know how practically relevant the creation of a new public company is to that goal - but that's another thread.

I guess this turned out to largely be a response to "everything should be public or private," which doesn't even really make sense. The statement idealizes theoretical extremes that don't exist in the real world.

 

[Nebula815]

There, I disagree. Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. In this idea, I want to believe that individuals know what is best for themselves. Therefore, and after reading many papers and books on the different social system, I became a fervent supporter of capitalism. It leaves society to itself.

I am not saying that only good comes out of it, but it is the best ideology possible.

Cheers

What you are talking about would be referred to as liberalism ("liberalism" as in the 19th to early 20th century definition, not the modern definition meaning a big-government supporter) I think, or maybe free enterprise or free-market capitalism.

Remember, capitalism occurs regardless of the social system. It occurs in prisons, which are essentially like miniaturized versions of communism, in socialist societies (the Soviet Union had a whole underground black market capitalist system), in organized crime, in third world countries with lots of corruption, and so forth.

In order for it to function properly for society though, you need a free market to form a free-market capitalist system. Forming this is tough, and requires a lot of different things, which is why capitalism tends to fail in third world nations. You also need political freedom.

Pure capitalism without a free market is just another form of serfdom, along with socialism, fascism, feudalism, slavery, etc...

It's like democracy. We all consider democracy as good, but in its purest form, democracy is just another form of tyranny, same as dictatorship. You need proper institutions and structure for democracy to work (such as a free press for example).

No Westernized nation is a pure democracy, they are a structured form of it, like a parliamentary democracy or a Constitutional republic as we have in the good 'ole USA.

 

[Char. Limit]

a Constitutional republic like we have in the good 'ole USA.

Sorry, but everyone who's not totally naïve realizes that the voters don't mean crap. Who rules? Big Business, with lobbyists and campaign contributors pulling the strings of Senators, Representatives, the President (he doesn't fool me), governors, etc., etc.

The USA is a republican plutocracy.

 

[Al68]

Who rules? Big Business...

Who exactly are you claiming is big business ruling?? Themselves?

God forbid a business would be in charge of itself!

I guess liberty means ruling? So I rule if I'm free to rule myself? Puuuleeeease!

 

[drankin]

Who exactly are you claiming is big business ruling?? Themselves?

God forbid a business would be in charge of itself!

I guess liberty means ruling? So I rule if I'm free to rule myself? Puuuleeeease!

Bingo, how dare I start a business for the sake of profiting from it.That would be just... evil.

 

[Al68]

Bingo, how dare I start a business for the sake of profiting from it.That would be just... evil.

Now you know that those of us that still believe in freedom are just "for the rich", "pro-big business", "hate the poor", (insert favorite hateful socialist nonsense here), etc.

 

[Char. Limit]

I claim that business rules government. Just look at all the Senators and their masters, er, lobbyists.

Fact: All politicians are corrupt.
Fact: Disagreeing with the previous fact is a sign of naïveté.

 

[Al68]

I claim that business rules government.

That has no meaning unless you are claiming that government in turn rules someone else on behalf of "business".

Again, what person is being ruled?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I claim that business rules government. Just look at all the Senators and their masters, er, lobbyists.

Fact: All politicians are corrupt.
Fact: Disagreeing with the previous fact is a sign of naïveté.

Interesting argument. Believe you or I am naive. You might come up with something more convincing.

 

[fatra2]

What you are talking about would be referred to as liberalism ("liberalism" as in the 19th to early 20th century definition, not the modern definition meaning a big-government supporter) I think, or maybe free enterprise or free-market capitalism.

Not from the few books I read on capitalism. I also agree with you that capitalism should not be mistinterpreted with a political system. Capitalism is a society system. I also agree with the fact that pure capitalism should not be implemented, since it happens (rarely, but it happens) that people are very unfortunate, and society should help them also.

As for:

It's like democracy. We all consider democracy as good, but in its purest form, democracy is just another form of tyranny, same as dictatorship.

From my understanding, democracy is defined as a government ruled by the people, normally through a voting process. In its purest form, it sounds pretty good to me.

I also agree that no country in truly in this form of governing. Some try to get as close as possible to it. But it is still the best system around.

Cheers

 

[Char. Limit]

That has no meaning unless you are claiming that government in turn rules someone else on behalf of "business".

Again, what person is being ruled?

Why, the non-rich, of course.

Also, to prove my belief in cynicism wrong, please present an impossibility: an honest politician.

I eagerly await this example.

 

[fatra2]

Hi there,

Also, to prove my belief in cynicism wrong, please present an impossibility: an honest politician.

From your different posts, I can only imagine that you live in the US. You should also know that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, it is only possible to present some people that have been caught. But I want to believe firmly that the others are good, honest people, doing a tough, honest job.

Cheers

 

[Al68]

Not from the few books I read on capitalism. I also agree with you that capitalism should not be mistinterpreted with a political system. Capitalism is a society system. I also agree with the fact that pure capitalism should not be implemented, since it happens (rarely, but it happens) that people are very unfortunate, and society should help them also.

I think the point was that unlike other economic systems, capitalism isn't "implemented", imposed, etc. It just exists.

I think it's more accurate to describe a free market capitalist economy as specifically the lack of an economic system, rather than a system itself, since it's the lack of an "imposed" economic system that characterizes it.

We don't typically refer to other activities that free people engage in just because it's not prohibited as part of a "system". We would call it a lack of a system.

 

[Al68]

Why, the non-rich, of course.

Do you have any evidence that I (non-rich) am being ruled by "business" through government?

Also, to prove my belief in cynicism wrong, please present an impossibility: an honest politician.

I eagerly await this example.

You'll be waiting a long time, few are more cynical than me. Of course I don't consider it corruption for government to leave people alone. Just the opposite. I consider restrictions on economic freedom to be the enemy of the people.

 

[Char. Limit]

Do you have any evidence that I (non-rich) am being ruled by "business" through government?You'll be waiting a long time, few are more cynical than me. Of course I don't consider it corruption for government to leave people alone. Just the opposite. I consider restrictions on economic freedom to be the enemy of the people.

Evidence: It is against the law (government) to steal, unless you are in charge of a company (Enron, etc.).


I am cynical off the charts. Like I said, I believe it doesn't matter who is elected, they are all slaves to the lobbyists of K Street. Even the president. However, I did make a mistake in pointing the finger at just big business: I forgot about special-interest groups (ACLU, etc.).

 

[Al68]

Evidence: It is against the law (government) to steal, unless you are in charge of a company (Enron, etc.).

First, that's not evidence for your claim that I'm ruled by business through government. So, I'll take that as a no, you have no evidence and you're just spouting hateful nonsense.

Second, do you have any evidence that it's not illegal for someone in charge of a business to steal? Sounds like just some weird delusion to me.

 

[Nebula815]

From my understanding, democracy is defined as a government ruled by the people, normally through a voting process. In its purest form, it sounds pretty good to me.

I also agree that no country in truly in this form of governing. Some try to get as close as possible to it. But it is still the best system around.

Cheers

Well, the problem with "pure" democracy is that it's tyranny of the majority. Dictatorship is tyranny of a minority. Both are bad. You want a system that protects the minority from the majority and the majority from the minority.

 

[Nebula815]

I claim that business rules government. Just look at all the Senators and their masters, er, lobbyists.

Fact: All politicians are corrupt.
Fact: Disagreeing with the previous fact is a sign of naïveté.

The thing is, it is excessive regulation of Big Business that causes it to lobby the politicians like crazy. Big Business will in general leave government alone. If government seeks to regulate business however, business then will seek to regulate the government.

For example, Wal-Mart used to be a tiny presence in Washington. But since they have become the target of unions, politicians, and various other groups and interests, they are now among the top lobbyists in Washington.

That is why conservatives emphasize limited government as much as possible. You keep government as limited as you can, and thus you limit the influence of the various special interests in Washington (and the state capitals for the states) as much as you can.

 

[Pattonias]

I claim that business rules government. Just look at all the Senators and their masters, er, lobbyists.

Fact: All politicians are corrupt.
Fact: Disagreeing with the previous fact is a sign of naïveté.

I don't think simply writing fact in front of your statements really qualifies as proof on this forum.

naïveté - interesting that you took the time to write that out correctly in French.

What is your definition of corruption? At what point did you become the least "naïve" person and became the best judge of others "naïveté"?

Its just that making statements like these leave no room for argument on the real issue. Whether you think your vote matters doesn't change the fact that your vote, in addition to your peers, are what elect your officials. All the way from the local level to the top. If you feel that your vote is not enough of a contribution to get your personal ideals acknowledged, then perhaps its time to start volunteering to support your favorite runner. Those who collect the largest support base are the ones who get elected. Perhaps you should start directly supporting those who you think would better lead.

Do you vote?

 

[kote]

Evidence: It is against the law (government) to steal, unless you are in charge of a company (Enron, etc.).

Ignoring a lot of other nonsense for the moment, do you realize Enron's CEO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay" was found guilty in a criminal court and would be in jail right now if he didn't die?

Also, he was the son of a poor preacher and delivered papers and mowed lawns before earning a PhD and working his way up. Damn those rich people keeping the poor down.

 

[Pattonias]

Ignoring a lot of other nonsense for the moment, do you realize Enron's CEO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay" was found guilty in a criminal court and would be in jail right now if he didn't die?

Also, he was the son of a poor preacher and delivered papers and mowed lawns before earning a PhD and working his way up. Damn those rich people keeping the poor down.

Never mind their background, once they are rich they immediately become an oppressive bastard. Weren't you informed in the recently published manifestos?

 

[mheslep]

But that "right" is not infringed upon, nor is anyone planning on doing so...

The ability to buy private insurance has been infringed upon in several countries, and there as aspects of the same thing planned in the US.

 

[mheslep]

Er... the "them" in the second quote refers to traffic cops, not health insurance termites. And, yes, profiting off someone's LIFE is a moral wrong. [...]

It is not at all clear what that means - "profiting off someone's LIFE". You likely mean in the sense of profiting by saving an individual from a fatal situation. Even in the most extreme versions of that scenario the morality of profiting is not always clear to me. Consider, e.g. organ donation. Large numbers of people die annually for want of a transplant, and far and away the reason is a lack of donors. Yet lifting the ban on organ buying/selling with all the troubles that entails would vastly increase the number of donors, a point widely recognized even by opponents (of which I probably include myself). Thus "profiting" would clearly save a great many lives. So which is the moral path?

 

[Char. Limit]

Bah, I can see that I am not speaking well.

No, I do not vote. But I will... when I turn 18.

Next year!

 

[mheslep]

It was my understanding that with universal healthcare systems, conventional insurance goes away completely. Is that not true? [...]

Some provinces in Canada until a recent court decision (2005?) banned by law the operation of private health services. The UK has private insurance/services alongside its government system (NHS), but (1) it is extremely expensive as participation is very small (~single digit percentage), (2) in many situations NHS rules are that, if one ventures outside of the government system to obtain, say a drug or operation denied under NHS, any further medical service for that illness is denied under NHS.

[...]So it is a practical reality that there is a reduced freedom of choice in Canada that some Canadians work around by coming to the US to access a system that is more free.

This addresses, I think, availability issues under the Ca. government system, a different issue from whether or not one was prevented legally from offering/buying private services.

 

[Pattonias]

Bah, I can see that I am not speaking well.

No, I do not vote. But I will... when I turn 18.

Next year!

I am glad that you vote (or plan to) because that means that when we are taking the time to debate the issues we then plan to do something about it. I once argued with a guy about politics for over an hour before he finally revealed that he refuses to vote. I felt there was no point in discussing it anymore because my opinion was the only one that would be heard. There really isn't any point to arguing politics with a non-participant.



I also wouldn't want Diddy to get you "VOTE or DIE!"

 

[Dale]

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html

The US health care system is the worst health care system except for all of the others that have been tried. (OK, that's probably an exaggeration, but the US system is not as bad as conventionally portrayed)

Honestly, I find it rather surprising that Char.Limit simultaneously wants the government to control health care and at the same time believes that politicians are corrupt. I agree wholesale with the latter which is why I always seek to limit the power of politicians rather than increase it.