Titus Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) This was a motion put forward at a debating competition I was at a few years ago. I was on the team against the motion, and no one was declared a winner. The motion in full: "The police should be privatized to provide the best service". What are your views? Edited November 30, 2014 by Titus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrett Tipton Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Hell no. If the police were privatized, victims of robbery, murder, assault, etc. would be the ones shouldering the burden of payment (which would be pretty hefty I'll bet). The victims are the ones who are already at a disadvantage. If you didn't pay your bill the police likely wouldn't help you the next time you need help. Imagine having to give out credit card information after you've been robbed. This is just a terrible idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 I think there is a conflict of interests when it comes to privatization and enforcement of the law. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Privatizing the police sounds absolutely stupid on an infinite amount of levels. Debate over. 1 Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maleficent_2014 Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 This was a motion put forward at a debating competition I was at a few years ago. I was on the team against the motion, and no one was declared a winner. The motion in full: "The police should be privatized to provide the best service". What are your views? I would argue (although I am not a Constitutional law expert) that this would be in contravention of the constitution, and against the general welfare. Quote The Realm of Wyldwood Member of the Brotherhood of the Clouds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 if we privatized the police it would be a more honest demonstration of who they're actually serving and protecting 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanSputia Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Privatizing the police sounds absolutely stupid on an infinite amount of levels. Debate over. You put it best. All law enforcement are here to provide for the commonwealth of all individuals; wealthy, underprivileged, convicts, politicians, race though I'm sure race baiters would disagree, equality is the essence of law enforcement, not a paycheck. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 You put it best. All law enforcement are here to provide for the commonwealth of all individuals; wealthy, underprivileged, convicts, politicians, race though I'm sure race baiters would disagree, equality is the essence of law enforcement, not a paycheck. Not to mention that any police officer who complains about their paycheck needs to be punched. "I wish the state would pay for my gas to drive around and ruin peoples days." -Fox Fire Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Hell no. If the police were privatized, victims of robbery, murder, assault, etc. would be the ones shouldering the burden of payment (which would be pretty hefty I'll bet). The victims are the ones who are already at a disadvantage. If you didn't pay your bill the police likely wouldn't help you the next time you need help. Imagine having to give out credit card information after you've been robbed. This is just a terrible idea. This^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 This was a motion put forward at a debating competition I was at a few years ago. I was on the team against the motion, and no one was declared a winner. The motion in full: "The police should be privatized to provide the best service". What are your views? Don't you have to decide what "the best service" means before you can answer the privatization part? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maleficent_2014 Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Indeed, property rights and all that. But then, that's because American society is founded on the support for and development of private property. Quote The Realm of Wyldwood Member of the Brotherhood of the Clouds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Indeed, property rights and all that. But then, that's because American society is founded on the support for and development of private property. This is only partially correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maleficent_2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Explain. Quote The Realm of Wyldwood Member of the Brotherhood of the Clouds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 It's only partially correct in that's not the only principle and idea America was founded on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatnate Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 This was a motion put forward at a debating competition I was at a few years ago. I was on the team against the motion, and no one was declared a winner. The motion in full: "The police should be privatized to provide the best service". What are your views? Nope, no one outside of the most dystopian capitalistic societies want law enforcement or even firefighters that respond to economic conditions. This is the economic equivalent of letting wolves eat the people who can't run fast in modern society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 firefighters that respond to economic conditions This reminds me a lot of Crassus. He was a popularis in Rome who founded the first firefighters. Sounds great, right? Nope. The guy made a mockery of "public service". If your house was burning down and you could not pay the fee for the firefighters, it was left to burn. After, of course, he would buy the property for cheap, rebuild the property, and lease it. He got rich on what should have been a public service. I imagine only a similar fate for privatized law enforcement. In this model, who pays for the investigation? The guy who just robbed the bank and can offer more for the police not to investigate? What would they be more loyal to, money or society? Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrett Tipton Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Nope, no one outside of the most dystopian capitalistic societies want law enforcement or even firefighters that respond to economic conditions. This is the economic equivalent of letting wolves eat the people who can't run fast in modern society. This reminds me a lot of Crassus. He was a popularis in Rome who founded the first firefighters. Sounds great, right? Nope. The guy made a mockery of "public service". If your house was burning down and you could not pay the fee for the firefighters, it was left to burn. After, of course, he would buy the property for cheap, rebuild the property, and lease it. He got rich on what should have been a public service. I imagine only a similar fate for privatized law enforcement. In this model, who pays for the investigation? The guy who just robbed the bank and can offer more for the police not to investigate? What would they be more loyal to, money or society? These two things are why I'm so surprised that hospitals and healthcare in general aren't public services. They seem like such a perfect fit for public service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Posted December 1, 2014 Author Share Posted December 1, 2014 Ok, I'm going to play devils advocate seeing as you are all against the motion. First off we have to define what we mean when we call it privatized, yes naturally it will be run by a privately owned corporation, but rather than be directly paid for by the people, instead it is contracted by the government. In this way the police are paid for by everyone and therefore have a duty of care towards the public as a whole. This avoids the idea that they will only serve those that pay their bills. Secondly by placing this service in private hands the companies will be more competitive as they are competing for various contracts and therefore will try to provide the best service possible. Different companies might also specialize in different area, so one company might be best at cyber crime and therefore would be contracted to every force to tackle it. Because they are private companies they would also be very aware that the public could force government to no longer contract them and would then be eager to void any bad press, such as incidents on racism or police brutality. Thirdly when you look at the UK (I'm British so I can't think of any example for America) the coal mining industry and train service were all nationalized industry and services, they were privatized and made far more efficient, and although the coal mines closed due to them being uneconomical the train service has become vastly better, who's to say that this won't affect the police force? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 So, what is meant by privatized is that the government contracts corporations who hire law enforcement? Maybe it is more apprehensiveness, but where would you even start with something like this? Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pwnius Scrubius Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) So basically hiring Private Police Contractors/Companies? That is... interesting, but I fear that this can raise the upkeep of police forces since the gov has to play the PPC enough so the PPC can pay for ammunition, gear and pay their employees. Sacrificing money for preformance. But what if one PPC gets so big that they are the only ones being hired? That their competition can't compete at all without taking out huge loans? Stuff can go wrong indeed. Edited December 1, 2014 by Pwnius Scrubius 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrett Tipton Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Secondly by placing this service in private hands the companies will be more competitive as they are competing for various contracts and therefore will try to provide the best service possible. Nope. They won't provide the best service possible. They'll provide the cheapest service possible. Sure, maybe the individual cops do their job the best they can, but the companies will still want to make mega profits. I can very easily see a WalMart of crime prevention emerging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiliam Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 I can't see this working based on the fact that the purpose of a police force is to serve the public by protecting property,enforce laws and limit civil disorder. That is to protect ALL properties, Enforce ALL laws and limit ALL civil disorder not those who are able to pay for the service. It just makes no sense in my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 I can't see this working based on the fact that the purpose of a police force is to serve the public by protecting property,enforce laws and limit civil disorder. That is to protect ALL properties, Enforce ALL laws and limit ALL civil disorder not those who are able to pay for the service. It just makes no sense in my mind. The problem with privatizing the police is that they are not a government agency that can be held accountable for their actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elsuper Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) The enforcement of law, aside from external defense, is the most fundamental function of government. To outsource it is to abdicate not only the responsibility to govern, but the very essence of what the government is in a de facto sense. A private police force is a private government, in that it is executing the functions of governance. Edited December 1, 2014 by elsuper 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 The enforcement of law, aside from external defense, is the most fundamental function of goveExrnment. To outsource it is to abdicate not only the responsibility to govern, but the very essence of what the government is in a de facto sense. A private police force is a private government, in that it is executing the functions of governance. elsuper is exactly right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.