Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

manofmystery wrote: The T wrote: And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.     Seems to me that money reigns in our current, government run, justice system.   Shame is, Pat, this is one of those things government has controlled so long that people feel that'd they'd be helpless without them.   Untill people can break their assinine perception that unaccountable government bureaucrats can be trusted, and the free market (that makes up each and every one of us) can't, we aren't going to get anywhere.  People seem to believe that accountability exists within government and does not within the free market when, in fact, the exact opposite is true.

Yup. It's very unfortunate. The strange thing is I don't know where this assumption of good will and accountability in government ever came from. Now it's unshakable dogma though.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: No need to go to bed Pat.  Why not forget theory?  Now is the time for praxis! John Doe gets drunk and kills his wife one night.  Neither of them have any living family.  What happens to John Doe under your scenario? That would depend on the specifics of the market.  If protection worked as an insurance agency works, the act of aggression would be punished by the defense agency since it occurred against one of its clients. The reparations would then go to the company. If the companies work a pay as your play kind of deal I could envision two scenarios: 1) People pay for the apprehension of the criminal through one of the defense agencies as a pro bono arrangement. 2) Unclaimed offenses are left open to the first claimant in such situations. I could imagine certain industries existing just to take up the prosecution of such cases, or since the market would probably too small to support it since this scenario is absurd, individual defense firms, or anybody who finds out about the situation, could prosecute the criminal hoping to collect the reparations and turn a profit. Tell me in what society ever a murderer has just gone unpunished? Rogue killers have been brought to justice long before any governmental protection service began.

So...what burden of proof is needed in either scenario?

Funny that you call my scenario absurd.  What exactly is absurd about it? (Or do you prefer to just throw around adjectives without backing them up?  Kind of like what your goon patrols would do with accusations).

You would end up having turf wars.  That's it.  My neighborhood's police force vs. someone else's police force. 

Rogue innocents have been brought to injustice long before any governmental protection service began.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: No need to go to bed Pat.  Why not forget theory?  Now is the time for praxis! John Doe gets drunk and kills his wife one night.  Neither of them have any living family.  What happens to John Doe under your scenario? That would depend on the specifics of the market.  If protection worked as an insurance agency works, the act of aggression would be punished by the defense agency since it occurred against one of its clients. The reparations would then go to the company. If the companies work a pay as your play kind of deal I could envision two scenarios: 1) People pay for the apprehension of the criminal through one of the defense agencies as a pro bono arrangement. 2) Unclaimed offenses are left open to the first claimant in such situations. I could imagine certain industries existing just to take up the prosecution of such cases, or since the market would probably too small to support it since this scenario is absurd, individual defense firms, or anybody who finds out about the situation, could prosecute the criminal hoping to collect the reparations and turn a profit. Tell me in what society ever a murderer has just gone unpunished? Rogue killers have been brought to justice long before any governmental protection service began. So...what burden of proof is needed in either scenario? Funny that you call my scenario absurd.  What exactly is absurd about it? (Or do you prefer to just throw around adjectives without backing them up?  Kind of like what your goon patrols would do with accusations). You would end up having turf wars.  That's it.  My neighborhood's police force vs. someone else's police force.  Rogue innocents have been brought to injustice long before any governmental protection service began. So we're going to talk about a justice system now? That's really a separate issue. If we're keeping the same governmental judicial and corrections system the burden of proof would be no different. I'm calling it absurd because it's exceedingly rare that someone has no living family or friends and gets murdered. Why doesn't that happen with state police forces? Or countries police forces? When we have cross national legal disputes they're settled peacefully without conflict. Why would police forces go to war? You do realize how expensive that is right. They also can't draft and tax to support the conflict. It's in the best interest to work things out peacefully. And rogue innocents still get brought to justice. I didn't say the system would be perfect. It would only be better is my contention. The point is that your scenario hardly strikes down a private police force since people throughout history have shown a dislike for murderers even if they had no connection whatsoever to the person murdered.

Let me rephrase- police cannot arrest you without a reason to arrest you.  I can't just call the cops and say my neighbor murdered someone and they'll come and cart him off.  That's what I was referring to.

Absurd =/= exceedingly rare. 

What I'm pointing out is that private police forces would be no different than private bodyguard companies.  This is where it gets hairy- your idea of a private police force would set the nasty precedent that private (i.e., non-neutral) companies would have the right to suspend the rights of citizens.  This is undesirable.

The primary role of the government is to protect the rights of the citizens, including the right to life.  Police are a neutral part of that.  You claiming that they're not neutral, corrupt, racist, etc. doesn't change what it is supposed to be.  As we agree, no system will be perfect.  Much of what you claim about private police forces is based on pure conjecture- nothing more.  I have no need to conjecture because I see what a generally great job our police do here, and our rights are universally protected from those who would do us evil.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: No need to go to bed Pat.  Why not forget theory?  Now is the time for praxis! John Doe gets drunk and kills his wife one night.  Neither of them have any living family.  What happens to John Doe under your scenario? That would depend on the specifics of the market.  If protection worked as an insurance agency works, the act of aggression would be punished by the defense agency since it occurred against one of its clients. The reparations would then go to the company. If the companies work a pay as your play kind of deal I could envision two scenarios: 1) People pay for the apprehension of the criminal through one of the defense agencies as a pro bono arrangement. 2) Unclaimed offenses are left open to the first claimant in such situations. I could imagine certain industries existing just to take up the prosecution of such cases, or since the market would probably too small to support it since this scenario is absurd, individual defense firms, or anybody who finds out about the situation, could prosecute the criminal hoping to collect the reparations and turn a profit. Tell me in what society ever a murderer has just gone unpunished? Rogue killers have been brought to justice long before any governmental protection service began. So...what burden of proof is needed in either scenario? Funny that you call my scenario absurd.  What exactly is absurd about it? (Or do you prefer to just throw around adjectives without backing them up?  Kind of like what your goon patrols would do with accusations). You would end up having turf wars.  That's it.  My neighborhood's police force vs. someone else's police force.  Rogue innocents have been brought to injustice long before any governmental protection service began. So we're going to talk about a justice system now? That's really a separate issue. If we're keeping the same governmental judicial and corrections system the burden of proof would be no different. I'm calling it absurd because it's exceedingly rare that someone has no living family or friends and gets murdered. Why doesn't that happen with state police forces? Or countries police forces? When we have cross national legal disputes they're settled peacefully without conflict. Why would police forces go to war? You do realize how expensive that is right. They also can't draft and tax to support the conflict. It's in the best interest to work things out peacefully. And rogue innocents still get brought to justice. I didn't say the system would be perfect. It would only be better is my contention. The point is that your scenario hardly strikes down a private police force since people throughout history have shown a dislike for murderers even if they had no connection whatsoever to the person murdered. Let me rephrase- police cannot arrest you without a reason to arrest you.  I can't just call the cops and say my neighbor murdered someone and they'll come and cart him off.  That's what I was referring to. Absurd =/= exceedingly rare.  What I'm pointing out is that private police forces would be no different than private bodyguard companies.  This is where it gets hairy- your idea of a private police force would set the nasty precedent that private (i.e., non-neutral) companies would have the right to suspend the rights of citizens.  This is undesirable. The primary role of the government is to protect the rights of the citizens, including the right to life.  Police are a neutral part of that.  You claiming that they're not neutral, corrupt, racist, etc. doesn't change what it is supposed to be.  As we agree, no system will be perfect.  Much of what you claim about private police forces is based on pure conjecture- nothing more.  I have no need to conjecture because I see what a generally great job our police do here, and our rights are universally protected from those who would do us evil. I'm not sure why the burden of proof would swing like that. I would think that it would require a higher burden of proof since unlawful arrest or detainment charges could be brought against the arresting office, something very hard to do against a cop. The police do routinely do things with the lack of evidence you described, but not for extreme things like murder. Tickets for passing a school bus are apparently handled like you described. Change my wording then. An exceedingly rare scenario as a critique seems absurd to me. I don't believe they would act like bodyguards. The function of a body guard is a small subset of the function of a police officer. I have much more a problem with government suspending the rights of citizens. I don't see what that has to do with law enforcement though. We haven't talked about changing the court system so government would still be deciding guilt and innocence. The primary role of government as we conceived it is to protect the rights of citizens. However, those in power in government have unfortunately not accepted this mission statement. We can tell ourselves as much as we may want what the goal of government is, but governments have shown a complete inability to live up to these lofty ideals. I care little for what a police force is supposed to be and how it is supposed to act. It doesn't happen that way. There's no incentives for the force to act that way. What I'm saying is somewhat conjecture. It's also somewhat tested, although not in modern environments. The theory is perfectly sound though. You have not suggested any reason that market forces would not act in this industry the same way that they do in every industry. Private companies reduce cost and raise effectiveness. I don't see why this will be any different. At the very least, the system I described would deteriorate into another governmental system. At the best, we would see a great improvement. The police force preys on our rights as much as it provides us with safety (violence at the hands of government excluded). I will say they do a better job than the federal government and the military at protecting us.

In my world, there would be no school buses to pass. 

It wasn't a critique- it was a scenario to examine your position.  And exceedingly rare scenarios happen all the time. 

Private police forces would be a conflict of interest.  There would be far too many situations when paying customers would be able to do illegal things to non-paying customers and not be brought to justice.  Just because you conjecture that independent firms will "take up the case" pro bono isn't guaranteed.  And this would create other conflict of interest problems.  What private police force is responsible for handling the evidence of a crime, and by whose authority?  If I am accused of a crime, and the victim's police company are responsible for handling the evidence and investigating the scene, then this is a severe conflict of interest.  Ditto if it is my police company that does this. 

That you don't like how our current government behaves is not an argument against government per se.

I've given several reasons why private police forces would not be more effective.  One of them is just a few lines up.

I disagree.  I think both (in general) do an admirable job.


Edited by Epignosis - January 03 2011 at 09:06

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I agree with you. The handling of evidence would best be handled by third party companies which would gain business through their reputation among defense agencies for their fairness. Again, the problem I have with this argument you're making is that you assume the government to be honest and impartial, but the same assumption isn't granted to private companies. I assume that neither are honest and impartial by nature, but I see market forces which will push private companies to act as such. I see no such incentive, actually I see disincentives, for the government to behave the same way.

I don't know why you're having a problem with my argument.  It's rather simple and has little to do with government being honest and impartial.  Police are run by local governments, which are neutral parties in most towns / cities and have a big incentive to do so.  With private police, there would always be major conflicts of interests (such as obstructing justice to make sure their paying clientele aren't locked up or executed).

Another problem with your idea is this: Who grants private companies the authority to act with hostility toward me during an arrest attempt?

And just how would these third party companies build a reputation for fairness if they are just beginning?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: You just called them neutral parties. That's my problem You're making that assumption when I find it to be far from the truth. I don't see the conflicts of interest because it seems to be most economical to treat non-paying customers with respect out of fear of prosecution themselves and in an attempt to gain business. Who grants the police to act with hostility towards me? I haven't done so. Nobody else has authority to grant them that privileged for me. In this respect nothing changes between systems. The same way any new company builds a reputation. They start. Perform the way people want. And a reputation builds.

I'm not making any assumption.  They are supposed to be neutral parties.  Whether they are or are not in practice is a matter of debate.  Private police will not be neutral parties- and cannot be neutral parties- ever.

You failed to answer the question.  Who gives private companies the right to act with hostility toward me?

You failed to answer the question.  You said a third party with a good reputation will handle evidence in a criminal investigation.  So a new third party investigation company starts up and has no reputation.  How does it obtain a reputation if it cannot (should not) handle evidence because of no reputation?  Going further, who gets to decide which third party investigation company gets to handle the evidence and investigate the scene?  You'll probably just say a fourth party company with a good reputation...

Equality 7-2521 wrote: If you committed a wrong, anybody has a right to act with hostility towards you within reason if their intent is to compensate the victim. If you didn't commit a wrong, then they have no right and you should be compensated for your loss. Look at this scenario. Say the government owns all airports and airplanes and I proposed to privatize them. You could say, "But what companies would build the airplanes. Their quest for profit creates a conflict of interest between making money and customer safety. How will we know that the planes are safe." Says I: "Simple. Those that take stringent measures to assure passenger safety will quickly gain a reputation. People will then patronize them while the less safe airlines go out of business." Says you: "You failed to answer the question.  You said a company with a good reputation for safety will handle air travel.  So a new air travel company starts up and has no reputation.  How does it obtain a reputation if it cannot (should not) handle flight because of no reputation?" Again, they gain a reputation by doing their job well just the same as any business. The public would decide, indirectly, what investigation teams to use by patronizing companies which employ fair and efficient evidence handlers.

Then why have police at all?

Well, when you're the one accused of a crime, we'll let you be the Guinea pig so that the new company can build a reputation. 

Saying "the public" is very nebulous.  What does that mean "the public would decide?"  Someone breaks into my home and steals things.  Who exactly decides what third party company will be handling the investigation, and who pays for them to do this?

Libertarians of the undead.

A private police force has numerous logistical problems. 

One is that people don't sit at home all day. Some people like to travel.  I don't want to have to concern myself with buying police coverage in every little town I drive through if I'm taking a cross-country road trip.  Of course Pat or MoM may assume there will be national companies to handle this or beneficial charitable police forces, but these are just...*ahem*...absurd assumptions.

Just as there are major gaps in coverage when it comes to cell phones and strip malls, there won't be police coverage in every pocket of the country.  Private police forces will conclude that the backwater swamps off Redneck Road aren't cost-effective to serve because of such a low population...well that's certainly convenient for the serial killers, even if for a little while. 

Would businesses have to buy temporary services from police when they want to send their employees to conferences in other states?  "Well, it looks like there is engine trouble on the plane, we need to make an emergency landing in Kansas City."  "Oh damn, I better figure out what police companies there are in Kansas City so I can buy a day or two worth of coverage in case I'm mugged at the airport!"

Or in instances when hundreds of people are victims of the same crime.  Will there be nine different competing private police forces working on the same case?  That isn't going to work out well at all.  The companies will try to cut the legs out from under the competition, and this will obstruct justice. 

When chasing dangerous criminals, police are not going to have time to determine whether or not it is cost-effective to do so.  Police need to be free to act against all crimes as quickly as possible. 

The T wrote: But if laws were less idiotic, there would be less chance for abuse. [...] I prefer a solution where there's less liberties that the cops can trample on, than one where they become a private force.

Wow, T and I agree on something! 

My experience and observation is that local police forces in general do a fantastic job- the problem is not with them, but with all the stupid laws they are required to enforce.  Get rid of most of those, and the local police forces can concentrate on removing the truly dangerous people from society.

Epignosis wrote: A private police force has numerous logistical problems.  One is that people don't sit at home all day. Some people like to travel.  I don't want to have to concern myself with buying police coverage in every little town I drive through if I'm taking a cross-country road trip.  Of course Pat or MoM may assume there will be national companies to handle this or beneficial charitable police forces, but these are just...*ahem*...absurd assumptions.

Not very absurd at all. In fact, it would be incredibly likely that some mechanism for this would exist. Simply because as you said, people don't sit home all day. Clearly there would be a huge market for covering traveling persons. To deny that the market would expand to provide this service is to deny everything that is known about the free market. How this would be handled is of course the tricky part. Would defense be purchased from an insurance company which pays for your fees like health insurance pays for medical fees? If this is the case the problem of traveling is immediately solved, so long as you're going somewhere which have agencies supported by your insurance. Would private businesses extend coverage to their patrons much like shopping malls do? Again, in this case when you travel you would be covered. Would national corporations exist? Would smaller companies work in unison via a referral system to cover traveling individuals?

I can't answer which one, nor can anyone. However, there's ample ways this could be handled.

Epignosis wrote: Just as there are major gaps in coverage when it comes to cell phones and strip malls, there won't be police coverage in every pocket of the country.  Private police forces will conclude that the backwater swamps off Redneck Road aren't cost-effective to serve because of such a low population...well that's certainly convenient for the serial killers, even if for a little while.

This is true with police forces in backwater places. The forces are laughably small, have no budget, and have response times which preclude them from actually preventing a crime in progress. I would expect private companies to improve this situation, but there's no reason the status quo can't be maintained.

Epignosis wrote: Would businesses have to buy temporary services from police when they want to send their employees to conferences in other states?  "Well, it looks like there is engine trouble on the plane, we need to make an emergency landing in Kansas City."  "Oh damn, I better figure out what police companies there are in Kansas City so I can buy a day or two worth of coverage in case I'm mugged at the airport!"

Already addressed in my first point, but why wouldn't the airport have its own security? You think the airport would go unsecured and just take a chance? Or do you think that the airport would exclude its patrons from benefiting from their defense contractors? Both of those options are unreasonable and don't occur in the world as it is today, let alone in a completely private society.

Epignosis wrote: Or in instances when hundreds of people are victims of the same crime.  Will there be nine different competing private police forces working on the same case?  That isn't going to work out well at all.  The companies will try to cut the legs out from under the competition, and this will obstruct justice.

Why would they do that exactly? Seems to me the most economical course of action would be to cooperate.

Epignosis wrote: When chasing dangerous criminals, police are not going to have time to determine whether or not it is cost-effective to do so.  Police need to be free to act against all crimes as quickly as possible.

The same argument can be made for doctors in hospitals. They don't exactly seem to freeze and pull out a calculator when an 80 year old gun shot victim with lung cancer rolls into the hospital. I think they just treat him for the gun shot.

Epignosis wrote: My experience and observation is that local police forces in general do a fantastic job- the problem is not with them, but with all the stupid laws they are required to enforce.  Get rid of most of those, and the local police forces can concentrate on removing the truly dangerous people from society.

Even if I agreed I would contend that a private police force would do better. I do of course agree with the repeal of victimless crimes to free people and free resources in the realm of protection.