Assuming the same coverage, they will have one fifth the density.
Each. They will each have 1/5 the density. Real quick, now, what's 1/5 times 5?
Are you unable to read my last post?
Topic: Private Security(Re: US health care mandate) (Read 1874 times)
Each. They will each have 1/5 the density. Real quick, now, what's 1/5 times 5?
Are you unable to read my last post?
Assuming the same coverage, they will have one fifth the density.
Each. They will each have 1/5 the density. Real quick, now, what's 1/5 times 5?
+1 derp!
Assuming the same coverage, they will have one fifth the density.
Each. They will each have 1/5 the density. Real quick, now, what's 1/5 times 5?
How many security firms do you want to choose from? Five? Let's say five. So to equal the density of a municipal police force, that would mean five times as many officers employed at those security firms. That's five times as many officers being paid.
Wanna try making sense? If you replaced the current police force with 5 private agencies, that doesn't mean there are five times as many officers. What kind of dumbass logic is that?!?!
It just means that each firm will be one fifth the size of the former monopoly. People aren't going to change careers just because there are more companies to choose from.
So you want a security firm that has only one fifth the number of feet on the ground than what has presumably been determined to be an adequate number? Assuming the same coverage, they will have one fifth the density. Due to the random nature of crime, there will be times when your call for help will result in a much longer response time than occurs now. There's no way around it.
From a logical point of view, all you need to do is take the notion to the extreme to see the problem.
That's the dumbest thing I've heard today.
Of course the government cops are WAY over funded and have WAY more personnel than what is needed. I don't even want to pay for ANY of them - and of course they aren't necessary- you're making ASSumptions.
Better to stay quiet and let people just think you're stupid, then to start typing and remove all doubt.
How many security firms do you want to choose from? Five? Let's say five. So to equal the density of a municipal police force, that would mean five times as many officers employed at those security firms. That's five times as many officers being paid.
Wanna try making sense? If you replaced the current police force with 5 private agencies, that doesn't mean there are five times as many officers. What kind of dumbass logic is that?!?!
It just means that each firm will be one fifth the size of the former monopoly. People aren't going to change careers just because there are more companies to choose from.
So you want a security firm that has only one fifth the number of feet on the ground than what has presumably been determined to be an adequate number? Assuming the same coverage, they will have one fifth the density. Due to the random nature of crime, there will be times when your call for help will result in a much longer response time than occurs now. There's no way around it.
From a logical point of view, all you need to do is take the notion to the extreme to see the problem.
First of all, just because a publicly funded police force has a certain number of cops, does not imply that that number is optimum. Second, in every city that I've lived in there were always the city cops, the county sherriffs (and contables), the state cops and the city cops of the surrounding suburban cities. All of these different units communicated fine and seemed to manage the distribution of workload without significant problems. There is no reason to assume that several private security units working in an overlapping geographical area couldn't manage to do the same. The 911 operators generally have to choose which unit to call, and have radios that can switch frequencies to do exactly that (or call the different units' own dispatchers to do it).
Understood, assuming we're not talking about NAP, which might be the case. This forum has so much NAPsterism material in it that I often forget that sometimes we're not talking about NAP.
How many security firms do you want to choose from? Five? Let's say five. So to equal the density of a municipal police force, that would mean five times as many officers employed at those security firms. That's five times as many officers being paid.
Wanna try making sense? If you replaced the current police force with 5 private agencies, that doesn't mean there are five times as many officers. What kind of dumbass logic is that?!?!
It just means that each firm will be one fifth the size of the former monopoly. People aren't going to change careers just because there are more companies to choose from.
So you want a security firm that has only one fifth the number of feet on the ground than what has presumably been determined to be an adequate number? Assuming the same coverage, they will have one fifth the density. Due to the random nature of crime, there will be times when your call for help will result in a much longer response time than occurs now. There's no way around it.
From a logical point of view, all you need to do is take the notion to the extreme to see the problem.
First of all, just because a publicly funded police force has a certain number of cops, does not imply that that number is optimum. Second, in every city that I've lived in there were always the city cops, the county sherriffs (and contables), the state cops and the city cops of the surrounding suburban cities. All of these different units communicated fine and seemed to manage the distribution of workload without significant problems. There is no reason to assume that several private security units working in an overlapping geographical area couldn't manage to do the same. The 911 operators generally have to choose which unit to call, and have radios that can switch frequencies to do exactly that (or call the different units' own dispatchers to do it).
How many security firms do you want to choose from? Five? Let's say five. So to equal the density of a municipal police force, that would mean five times as many officers employed at those security firms. That's five times as many officers being paid.
Wanna try making sense? If you replaced the current police force with 5 private agencies, that doesn't mean there are five times as many officers. What kind of dumbass logic is that?!?!
It just means that each firm will be one fifth the size of the former monopoly. People aren't going to change careers just because there are more companies to choose from.
So you want a security firm that has only one fifth the number of feet on the ground than what has presumably been determined to be an adequate number? Assuming the same coverage, they will have one fifth the density. Due to the random nature of crime, there will be times when your call for help will result in a much longer response time than occurs now. There's no way around it.
From a logical point of view, all you need to do is take the notion to the extreme to see the problem.
How many security firms do you want to choose from? Five? Let's say five. So to equal the density of a municipal police force, that would mean five times as many officers employed at those security firms. That's five times as many officers being paid.
Wanna try making sense? If you replaced the current police force with 5 private agencies, that doesn't mean there are five times as many officers. What kind of dumbass logic is that?!?!
It just means that each firm will be one fifth the size of the former monopoly. People aren't going to change careers just because there are more companies to choose from.
Private security... Competition...
Sounds scary...
Sounds scary...
Being questioned/detained for smoking, driving, downloading, drinking, taking/buying pills, carrying a gun, not paying taxes, lying...already sounds very scary.
Private security... Competition...
Sounds scary...
Sounds scary...
It's not, really. Instead of having City police, or state police, you'll have Brinks or whatever. Private security firms are already all over the place.
Private security... Competition...
Sounds scary...
Sounds scary...
If corporate taxes were raised, employment of the poor would likely rise, and corporate revenue would likely rise as well, along with economic growth.
Here are the scenarios I see...
- Corporate taxes rise, CEOs increase prices & lays off people to offset tax. Food, transportation & shelter cost more for the poor. Friends of congressmen get more contracts where there is no incentive to be efficient because there's no competition (so might as well pocket as much as possible). That doesn't sound like economic growth to me.
- Corporate taxes decrease, CEOs hires people & decrease prices because of competition. Food, transportation & shelter cost less for the poor. Friends of congressmen don't get jack.
And if you are going to argue that there is no incentive for CEOs to lower prices, you are very wrong. If 10 companies exist & all get an equal tax break across all industries (not a bail out), then one of them is going to realize they can decrease prices some to increase sales. Then the other companies will follow because they don't want to lose sales over price. This obviously doesn't work in highly government regulated industries (healthcare, energy, telecom, banking, etc) where there are 2 "competitors" who collude & agree on pocketing the money because they know the government will protect them from new competition. Hints get rid of the regulation & allow more competition!
I don't know how much money you think would be freed up by someone living at the poverty line if they weren't paying taxes. Let's be candid though: taxes are not fun, and some tax revenue is ill spent, but as I said a few lines above, I think you're due for more information before you commit yourself to the opinions you have formed.
There are a lot more taxes than income tax. Poor people still directly pay property tax (if they own), sales tax, tolls, DMV fees, parking/speeding tickets, utility taxes/fees, hotel taxes/fees, airfare taxes/fees, gas tax, cigarette tax. They indirectly pay property tax (if they rent), inflation, tariffs (purchase imported products), corporate income tax (if employed), corporate ss & medicare (if employed). Literally the list goes on & on. And the poor don't own businesses, employ people, or have the money to hire good accountants to pass all these taxes off to. And no matter what restrictions are put in place, the rich will always find a way to pass off taxes. After all, half of congress are millionaires so why would they create laws to hinder themselves? Now do you see how big government hurts poor people?
You are correct in spirit, and it's a great argument to move the tax burden more to the rich. I couldn't agree more.
Some specific notes:
Speeding tickets which actually help safety, regardless of the income level are warranted. Speed traps are just evil.
A gas tax is perfectly legitimate, as it relates to pollution, usage, road development, etc. It gets closer to Herman Daly's vision. Same goes for registration. Inexpensive used car registration is very cheap.
You're completely wrong regarding corporate tax. If corporate taxes were raised, employment of the poor would likely rise, and corporate revenue would likely rise as well, along with economic growth. This is a double edged sword though. The problem, of course, is economists essentially have their heads up their ass when thinking economic growth is entirely desirable. In perpetuity, it simply is not possible. If I could recommend two authors to you, they would be Herman Daly and Paul Ehrlich. They would help give you a more balanced and informed view of the world outside your realm of libertarianism. Happy reading!
I don't know how much money you think would be freed up by someone living at the poverty line if they weren't paying taxes. Let's be candid though: taxes are not fun, and some tax revenue is ill spent, but as I said a few lines above, I think you're due for more information before you commit yourself to the opinions you have formed.
There are a lot more taxes than income tax. Poor people still directly pay property tax (if they own), sales tax, tolls, DMV fees, parking/speeding tickets, utility taxes/fees, hotel taxes/fees, airfare taxes/fees, gas tax, cigarette tax. They indirectly pay property tax (if they rent), inflation, tariffs (purchase imported products), corporate income tax (if employed), corporate ss & medicare (if employed). Literally the list goes on & on. And the poor don't own businesses, employ people, or have the money to hire good accountants to pass all these taxes off to. And no matter what restrictions are put in place, the rich will always find a way to pass off taxes. After all, half of congress are millionaires so why would they create laws to hinder themselves? Now do you see how big government hurts poor people?
Huh. I always thought it was a derivative of "copper", referring to their badge. Brits back me up on this?
Well, snopes seems to think that it's bunk, but not everything that snopes refutes is actually correct.
http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/cop.asp
Quote
Easy enough to get around. Just re-appropriate every two years.
True, and that is effectively what they do.
Heh. Learn something new every day, I guess. Not from the buttons or badges, or the acronym, but an entirely appropriate descriptive name, based on what they do... take your stuff.
Yeah, that appropriations thing has turned into one massive budgetary charlie-foxtrot. And people wonder why I'm an anarchist.
Most constables in Kentucky are not paid a salary, but are paid fees for services rendered."
Think about regular sherriffs, getting off-duty part-time work at banks and private events, as if the constable's office were a temp office for cops, and you would have the right idea. Incidentally, this is actually where we get the term 'cop' from. It orginally meant "constable on patrol".
Think about regular sherriffs, getting off-duty part-time work at banks and private events, as if the constable's office were a temp office for cops, and you would have the right idea. Incidentally, this is actually where we get the term 'cop' from. It orginally meant "constable on patrol".
Huh. I always thought it was a derivative of "copper", referring to their badge. Brits back me up on this?
Well, snopes seems to think that it's bunk, but not everything that snopes refutes is actually correct.
http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/cop.asp
Quote
Quote
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"
Take note of that last one, and think about what the framers though of standing armies, and how quickly their objections were simply ignored. They had a far greater trust in private armies, because they existed only for a particular contract and term, and then they went home to their families. They considered a 'warrior class' type culture within a standing army to be antiethical to a free population. Seems to me that they got it exactly right.
Take note of that last one, and think about what the framers though of standing armies, and how quickly their objections were simply ignored. They had a far greater trust in private armies, because they existed only for a particular contract and term, and then they went home to their families. They considered a 'warrior class' type culture within a standing army to be antiethical to a free population. Seems to me that they got it exactly right.
Easy enough to get around. Just re-appropriate every two years.
True, and that is effectively what they do.
Most constables in Kentucky are not paid a salary, but are paid fees for services rendered."
Think about regular sherriffs, getting off-duty part-time work at banks and private events, as if the constable's office were a temp office for cops, and you would have the right idea. Incidentally, this is actually where we get the term 'cop' from. It orginally meant "constable on patrol".
Think about regular sherriffs, getting off-duty part-time work at banks and private events, as if the constable's office were a temp office for cops, and you would have the right idea. Incidentally, this is actually where we get the term 'cop' from. It orginally meant "constable on patrol".
Huh. I always thought it was a derivative of "copper", referring to their badge. Brits back me up on this?
Quote
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"
Take note of that last one, and think about what the framers though of standing armies, and how quickly their objections were simply ignored. They had a far greater trust in private armies, because they existed only for a particular contract and term, and then they went home to their families. They considered a 'warrior class' type culture within a standing army to be antiethical to a free population. Seems to me that they got it exactly right.
Take note of that last one, and think about what the framers though of standing armies, and how quickly their objections were simply ignored. They had a far greater trust in private armies, because they existed only for a particular contract and term, and then they went home to their families. They considered a 'warrior class' type culture within a standing army to be antiethical to a free population. Seems to me that they got it exactly right.
Easy enough to get around. Just re-appropriate every two years.
Current and prior examples of private security & policing....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constable#United_Kingdom
"The system of policing by unpaid parish constables continued in England until the 19th century; in the London metropolitan area it was ended by the creation of the Metropolitan Police by the Metropolitan Police Act 1829,[15] and outside London by the County Police Act 1839, which allowed counties to establish full-time professional police forces. However, the lowest rank of the new police forces was still called "constable", and most outside London were headed by a chief constable.[16][17] This system is still used today."
Kentucky, where I live...
"In Kentucky, constables are elected from each magistrate district in the state. There are between three and eight magistrate districts in each county. Under Section 101 of the Kentucky Constitution, constables have the same countywide jurisdiction as the county sheriff.[46]
Prior to the 1970s, the main function of the constables was to provide court service and security to the Justice of the Peace courts. However, since these have been eliminated by judicial reform, the office of constable now has few real functions. Constables still have the power of arrest and to execute warrants, subpoenas, summonses and other court documents, and are required to execute any court process given to them. On the approval of the Fiscal Court (the legislature of the county) they may equip their vehicles with oscillating blue lights and sirens.[46]
Most constables in Kentucky are not paid a salary, but are paid fees for services rendered."
Think about regular sherriffs, getting off-duty part-time work at banks and private events, as if the constable's office were a temp office for cops, and you would have the right idea. Incidentally, this is actually where we get the term 'cop' from. It orginally meant "constable on patrol".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_police
"Security police protect their agency's facilities, properties, personnel, users, visitors and operations from harm and may enforce certain laws and administrative regulations. Most security police have at least some arrest authority. The law enforcement powers of security police vary widely, in some cases limited to those of private persons yet in others amounting to full police powers equivalent to state, provincial, or local law enforcement.
As distinct from general law enforcement, the primary focus of security police is on the protection of specific properties and persons. "
http://www.michigan.gov/mcoles/0,1607,7-229-41626_42413---,00.html
Bruce Schneier is af fine person and an excellent resource, but not a fan..
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/private_police.html
And from the DOJ's website...
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2034
"The private security field, in fact, is much more diverse than what many may imagine. Annually, it spends more than $100 billion on security products and services. In contrast, federal, state, and local law enforcement spend less than half that amount. Additionally, many private security employees are experts in technology, fraud, and forensics investigation and often hold professional certifications and advanced degrees.
Private security and public law enforcement share many of the same goals: preventing crime and disorder, identifying criminals, and ensuring the security of people and property. As there are two private security practitioners for every one sworn law enforcement officer, effective partnerships can act as a much needed force multiplier."
And then takent to it's logical conclusion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
Incidentally, the US Constitution explicityly grants the Congress the power to establish private armies via a letter of marque...
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"The Congress shall have Power To .... declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"
Take note of that last one, and think about what the framers though of standing armies, and how quickly their objections were simply ignored. They had a far greater trust in private armies, because they existed only for a particular contract and term, and then they went home to their families. They considered a 'warrior class' type culture within a standing army to be antiethical to a free population. Seems to me that they got it exactly right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constable#United_Kingdom
"The system of policing by unpaid parish constables continued in England until the 19th century; in the London metropolitan area it was ended by the creation of the Metropolitan Police by the Metropolitan Police Act 1829,[15] and outside London by the County Police Act 1839, which allowed counties to establish full-time professional police forces. However, the lowest rank of the new police forces was still called "constable", and most outside London were headed by a chief constable.[16][17] This system is still used today."
Kentucky, where I live...
"In Kentucky, constables are elected from each magistrate district in the state. There are between three and eight magistrate districts in each county. Under Section 101 of the Kentucky Constitution, constables have the same countywide jurisdiction as the county sheriff.[46]
Prior to the 1970s, the main function of the constables was to provide court service and security to the Justice of the Peace courts. However, since these have been eliminated by judicial reform, the office of constable now has few real functions. Constables still have the power of arrest and to execute warrants, subpoenas, summonses and other court documents, and are required to execute any court process given to them. On the approval of the Fiscal Court (the legislature of the county) they may equip their vehicles with oscillating blue lights and sirens.[46]
Most constables in Kentucky are not paid a salary, but are paid fees for services rendered."
Think about regular sherriffs, getting off-duty part-time work at banks and private events, as if the constable's office were a temp office for cops, and you would have the right idea. Incidentally, this is actually where we get the term 'cop' from. It orginally meant "constable on patrol".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_police
"Security police protect their agency's facilities, properties, personnel, users, visitors and operations from harm and may enforce certain laws and administrative regulations. Most security police have at least some arrest authority. The law enforcement powers of security police vary widely, in some cases limited to those of private persons yet in others amounting to full police powers equivalent to state, provincial, or local law enforcement.
As distinct from general law enforcement, the primary focus of security police is on the protection of specific properties and persons. "
http://www.michigan.gov/mcoles/0,1607,7-229-41626_42413---,00.html
Bruce Schneier is af fine person and an excellent resource, but not a fan..
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/private_police.html
And from the DOJ's website...
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2034
"The private security field, in fact, is much more diverse than what many may imagine. Annually, it spends more than $100 billion on security products and services. In contrast, federal, state, and local law enforcement spend less than half that amount. Additionally, many private security employees are experts in technology, fraud, and forensics investigation and often hold professional certifications and advanced degrees.
Private security and public law enforcement share many of the same goals: preventing crime and disorder, identifying criminals, and ensuring the security of people and property. As there are two private security practitioners for every one sworn law enforcement officer, effective partnerships can act as a much needed force multiplier."
And then takent to it's logical conclusion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
Incidentally, the US Constitution explicityly grants the Congress the power to establish private armies via a letter of marque...
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"The Congress shall have Power To .... declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"
Take note of that last one, and think about what the framers though of standing armies, and how quickly their objections were simply ignored. They had a far greater trust in private armies, because they existed only for a particular contract and term, and then they went home to their families. They considered a 'warrior class' type culture within a standing army to be antiethical to a free population. Seems to me that they got it exactly right.
I still think a free market is a better system for poor people in general though.
Honestly, and as kind as I can be without trying to be condescending, I wholeheartedly think you should press the reset switch, and start learning about markets, culture and economies from sources which are not labeled as libertarian sources. The first mistake that I must warn you to avoid making is to assume that a different presentation of the material would mean it must be communist or even socialist. You just need information that is distinctly absent from the libertarian presentations.
Quote
Not only would people not be paying taxes, but neither would companies which would make products cheaper & more jobs. More money available from not paying taxes would also allow people to contribute more to charity.
I don't know how much money you think would be freed up by someone living at the poverty line if they weren't paying taxes. Let's be candid though: taxes are not fun, and some tax revenue is ill spent, but as I said a few lines above, I think you're due for more information before you commit yourself to the opinions you have formed.
Now, it's quite obvious that you get what you pay for, and a whole heck of a lot of people can't afford private chefs.
The error you have made in your logic is by assuming that because private security firms exist, everyone will have them to the degree of quality needed.
The error you have made in your logic is by assuming that because private security firms exist, everyone will have them to the degree of quality needed.
The analogy I would have used would have been...
Chefs can and currently do exist. The restaurant you choose to purchase a meal at will be responsible for preparing a meal for you.
If your argument is price, I believe I have already addressed this. Private security is expensive now because you pay tax dollars for police protection. But if the police doesn't exist anymore & you aren't paying taxes for it, then you can re-allocate that money to pay for private police protection. Think HOA security guards, not necessarily body guards (although they would be cheaper, still expensive, & unnecessary for most people).
If your argument is necessity, you are probably right that poor people that live in a bad neighborhood will probably not be able to afford the protection they need. And I would argue that they probably don't get the protection they need now. I still think a free market is a better system for poor people in general though. Not only would people not be paying taxes, but neither would companies which would make products cheaper & more jobs. More money available from not paying taxes would also allow people to contribute more to charity.
Jump to: