The PCNation

[gimmepie]

I think we can agree then that the government should maintain control of its executive branch (police etc) and not turn to private organisations. I think the same should be said for the judicial as well, yes?

 

[Somewhere_]

I think we can agree then that the government should maintain control of its executive branch (police etc) and not turn to private organisations. I think the same should be said for the judicial as well, yes?

Yes, keep the courts and stuff not private. I need to look into this more, but I have a gut feeling its not a good idea to make courts private.

@Kanzler: Im going to continue researching and stuff for private police. I thought of a possible argument explaining why these police firms could not take over a city, but I still need to look into it further.

 

[Kanzler]

Yes, keep the courts and stuff not private. I need to look into this more, but I have a gut feeling its not a good idea to make courts private.

@Kanzler: Im going to continue researching and stuff for private police. I thought of a possible argument explaining why these police firms could not take over a city, but I still need to look into it further.

Of course not! The things that should be made public are the things that should be kept above money. For example, justice, education, etc.

 

[KetsuekiR]

Yes, keep the courts and stuff not private. I need to look into this more, but I have a gut feeling its not a good idea to make courts private.

If the courts cannot resist corruption, neither will the police. I feel that it's better to keep all executive branches public.

 

[Somewhere_]

If the courts cannot resist corruption, neither will the police. I feel that it's better to keep all executive branches public.

I think the police can, but I do not know about the courts. Competition prevents the police from being corrupt at every level except owner. And even then owners are sort of restricted by other police firms.

Lets keep courts public. It looks like I'm in the minority for privatized police anyways, so why debate that further here? How about we make its up to the individual communities and cities to make that decision so we can have a choice (freedom). Why restrict freedoms? So if a city wants a public police force, they can have it, but if one wants private police forces, they can have that instead.

 

[Kanzler]

I think the police can, but I do not know about the courts. Competition prevents the police from being corrupt at every level except owner. And even then owners are sort of restricted by other police firms.

Lets keep courts public. It looks like I'm in the minority for privatized police anyways, so why debate that further here? How about we make its up to the individual communities and cities to make that decision so we can have a choice (freedom). Why restrict freedoms? So if a city wants a public police force, they can have it, but if one wants private police forces, they can have that instead.

How about that individual communities and cities who want privatized police simply not be a part of PC Nation? The citizens of PC Nation are entitled to expect a reasonable standard of security - for that is a basic guarantee that is expected of government. I do not believe that a city or community with privatized police can provide that reasonable expectation of security and justice. If a community cannot provide a reasonable standard of security, then they should either be forced to do so, or cease to be a part of PC Nation altogether. Our citizens should have the freedom to move from any one place in PC Nation to another. If you privatize a community's police force, you are forcing upon our citizens unreasonable standards of security that they have had no say in deciding.

 

[Somewhere_]

How about that individual communities and cities who want privatized police simply not be a part of PC Nation? The citizens of PC Nation are entitled to expect a reasonable standard of security - for that is a basic guarantee that is expected of government. I do not believe that a city or community with privatized police can provide that reasonable expectation of security and justice. If a community cannot provide a reasonable standard of security, then they should either be forced to do so, or cease to be a part of PC Nation altogether. Our citizens should have the freedom to move from any one place in PC Nation to another. If you privatize a community's police force, you are forcing upon our citizens unreasonable standards of security that they have had no say in deciding.

What is wrong in having them choose? PC Nation can offer a public police force, but why can't an individual community or city deny that? If that those people believe a private police firm can provide those services better, they should have every right to choose the firm over the offered public police. If the standards become low because of a lack of competition (which I could foresee happening considering most communities and cities will most likely take the public police force), they can always fire the firm. However, under these threats, a firm may make a higher standard.

Do not get me wrong, I am not saying we should force upon everyone to use non-existent private police forces, but if someone makes a police firm, the community should have every right to use that service in replacement of public police.

 

[Kanzler]

What is wrong in having them choose? PC Nation can offer a public police force, but why can't an individual community or city deny that? If that those people believe a private police firm can provide those services better, they should have every right to choose the firm over the offered public police. If the standards become low because of a lack of competition (which I could foresee happening considering most communities and cities will most likely take the public police force), they can always fire the firm. However, under these threats, a firm may make a higher standard.

Do not get me wrong, I am not saying we should force upon everyone to use non-existent private police forces, but if someone makes a police firm, the community should have every right to use that service in replacement of public police.

Let's say I live in Province A in PC Nation. I have a certain expectation of security from living there. I have to go to Province B, with a privatized police force, for business. If I go, my expectation for a standard of security is violated. If I choose not to go, then my freedom to conduct business is curtailed. My freedom to make business should not be thusly curtailed.

Furthermore, if the police are private and are motivated by profit, then wouldn't there be differing standards of security based on socio-economic status? You'd have one tier for the rich, and one tier for the poor. The poor can't pay, and the rich can, which means the rich are more profitable than the poor. The logic here is that the private police cater to the rich while neglecting the poor. I believe that in a country, all citizens are politically equal. Politically equal includes having equal access to justice. Now even in a government-controlled system, that ideal cannot be met. But I think it is foolish to make differing standards of justice for different groups of people formally accepted. How can a country call itself a country if it doesn't even try to maintain justice for all?

 

[gimmepie]

I think, since we're a capitalist nation, the option of hiring a private security form should always be an option. However, I think for the sake of fairness and preventing corruption all states/providences/whatever should probably be provided with a public police force.

 

[Somewhere_]

Let's say I live in Province A in PC Nation. I have a certain expectation of security from living there. I have to go to Province B, with a privatized police force, for business. If I go, my expectation for a standard of security is violated. If I choose not to go, then my freedom to conduct business is curtailed. My freedom to make business should not be thusly curtailed.

Furthermore, if the police are private and are motivated by profit, then wouldn't there be differing standards of security based on socio-economic status? You'd have one tier for the rich, and one tier for the poor. The poor can't pay, and the rich can, which means the rich are more profitable than the poor. The logic here is that the private police cater to the rich while neglecting the poor. I believe that in a country, all citizens are politically equal. Politically equal includes having equal access to justice. Now even in a government-controlled system, that ideal cannot be met. But I think it is foolish to make differing standards of justice for different groups of people formally accepted. How can a country call itself a country if it doesn't even try to maintain justice for all?

If the standard of security is not met, they community would not continue to pay for the police firm. They will see statistics of safety with the public police vs. private police, and so our friend from Province A should have nothing to worry about.

Charities and goodwill will pay for the poor. The paragraph I am referring to is slightly above the very center of the page. https://lionsofliberty.com/2012/09/12/intro-to-ancap-private-defense-pt-1-police-protection/ Please ignore the fact that the source is fighting for Anarcho-Capitalism, and I am not an anarchist.

 

[Kanzler]

If the standard of security is not met, they community would not continue to pay for the police firm. They will see statistics of safety with the public police vs. private police, and so our friend from Province A should have nothing to worry about.

Charities and goodwill will pay for the poor. The paragraph I am referring to is slightly above the very center of the page. https://lionsofliberty.com/2012/09/12/intro-to-ancap-private-defense-pt-1-police-protection/ Please ignore the fact that the source is fighting for Anarcho-Capitalism, and I am not an anarchist.

Who will show them the statistics? You know privately own businesses don't have to disclose all the details of their business. You can create legislation that force them to, but that would involve government intervention.

I don't think you understand the failings of having a tiered system of public protection. You don't find it wrong that certain people can get a better standard of justice just because they can pay for it, and certain people are forced to have a lower standard of justice because they can't pay for better?

Charities and goodwill will not pay for the poor. How can you prove that the same standard can be provided to the poor through charity alone? If that could ever happen, why would we even force people to pay taxes to begin with? Charity is a stop-gap measure, is voluntary, and by no means guarantees equal protection under the law and equal access to justice.

Why is giving people the freedom to pursue profit so much more important than all citizens having equal protection under the law and equal access to justice to you? If you still aren't convinced, it's even in the American constitution, 14th amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Somewhere_]

Who will show them the statistics? You know privately own businesses don't have to disclose all the details of their business. You can create legislation that force them to, but that would involve government intervention.

I don't think you understand the failings of having a tiered system of public protection. You don't find it wrong that certain people can get a better standard of justice just because they can pay for it, and certain people are forced to have a lower standard of justice because they can't pay for better?

Charities and goodwill will not pay for the poor. How can you prove that the same standard can be provided to the poor through charity alone? If that could ever happen, why would we even force people to pay taxes to begin with? Charity is a stop-gap measure, is voluntary, and by no means guarantees equal protection under the law and equal access to justice.

Why is giving people the freedom to pursue profit so much more important than all citizens having equal protection under the law and equal access to justice to you? If you still aren't convinced, it's even in the American constitution, 14th amendment:

I cannot prove the standard will be provided through charity alone. I also included that police firms could extend their coverage to lower-income areas, even if those people are not paying.

And this is why the city can decide. If the people believe a police firm cannot provide equal protection, then they will not choose to pay for such a firm.

 

[Kanzler]

I cannot prove the standard will be provided through charity alone. I also included that police firms could extend their coverage to lower-income areas, even if those people are not paying.

And this is why the city can decide. If the people believe a police firm cannot provide equal protection, then they will not choose to pay for such a firm.

Could the police protect those with lower income, or must the police protect them?

And if the people cannot find a firm that will not sacrifice justice for dollars, what then? They will either have a public police force or hire a firm under so many regulations to guarantee equal protection and justice for all that it might as well be public.

 

[Somewhere_]

Could the police protect those with lower income, or must the police protect them?

And if the people cannot find a firm that will not sacrifice justice for dollars, what then? They will either have a public police force or hire a firm under so many regulations to guarantee equal protection and justice for all that it might as well be public.

I think the police firms would want to extent their reaches to those lower income areas to not appear heartless, which would be bad for business.

We could have a compromise: Not regulate these police firms for a few years and we could have the state decide whether or not they provide a good enough service. If they meet certain standards, they can stay, but if they dont, the state can come in and replace them with public police (i still think this is a restriction of freedom, but I think its a good compromise). I agree with you on that if they are regulated too much, it is not worth even having police firms in the first place.

 

[Kanzler]

I think the police firms would want to extent their reaches to those lower income areas to not appear heartless, which would be bad for business.

You know that's just window dressing right? All companies participate in corporate philanthropy, but that's usually to build up the brand, not because they sincerely care about those in need. And besides, even if they don't appear heartless, it doesn't mean that the level of protection will be equal.

Let's face it - poorer neighbourhoods tend to have more crime. Poorer neighbourhoods are therefore more costly to police. Poorer neighbourhoods are less able to pay for private policing - and things in general, since they're well, poor. Do you see the profit logic here? Because it's obvious to me - if I'm the CEO, I'm only going to provide a standard of protection to those poorer neighbourhoods that they can afford, and spend more resources on rich neighbourhoods because that's what's profitable. That makes sense for the pursuit of profit, but does that make sense through the eyes of justice?

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to appear as a heartless bastard. But all I would have to do is not "appear" like a heartless bastard - as long as I do that, I would do everything within my means to spend as little in those unprofitable neighbourhoods as possible. I don't know about you, but mere appearances is not acceptable.

We could have a compromise: Not regulate these police firms for a few years and we could have the state decide whether or not they provide a good enough service. If they meet certain standards, they can stay, but if they dont, the state can come in and replace them with public police (i still think this is a restriction of freedom, but I think its a good compromise). I agree with you on that if they are regulated too much, it is not worth even having police firms in the first place.

You are incredibly optimistic about the ability for corporations to provide social benefits. You know that corporations screw up all the time even when they're already regulated? The BP oil spill in 2010 happened because of gross negligence even though they were regulated by the government. So why would you play with fire and give corporations to do what they want? Why should we need to have a mess to clean up before a corporation is regulated?

This is why government intervention in the economy is necessary, and why government intervention in general is necessary - because certain mistakes are intolerable and shouldn't even happen in the first place.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

I have a better idea. First:
1). Arm our citizens. Comes in handy when batshit extremists try attacking over theological issues.
2). State Police. I'd rather have uniform protection around our nation than glaring weak spots where evil can reside.
3). Moderate government intervention to inhibit the growth of monopolies, with heavy regulations on edible foods. Other regulations should regard the environment so we don't become China.

Seems legit, right?

 

[Kanzler]

I disagree with arming citizens. Then you'd have to live with mass shootings every other week. I don't think that's an appropriate level of violence for a society.

 

[Somewhere_]

You know that's just window dressing right? All companies participate in corporate philanthropy, but that's usually to build up the brand, not because they sincerely care about those in need. And besides, even if they don't appear heartless, it doesn't mean that the level of protection will be equal.

Let's face it - poorer neighbourhoods tend to have more crime. Poorer neighbourhoods are therefore more costly to police. Poorer neighbourhoods are less able to pay for private policing - and things in general, since they're well, poor. Do you see the profit logic here? Because it's obvious to me - if I'm the CEO, I'm only going to provide a standard of protection to those poorer neighbourhoods that they can afford, and spend more resources on rich neighbourhoods because that's what's profitable. That makes sense for the pursuit of profit, but does that make sense through the eyes of justice?

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to appear as a heartless bastard. But all I would have to do is not "appear" like a heartless bastard - as long as I do that, I would do everything within my means to spend as little in those unprofitable neighbourhoods as possible. I don't know about you, but mere appearances is not acceptable.



You are incredibly optimistic about the ability for corporations to provide social benefits. You know that corporations screw up all the time even when they're already regulated? The BP oil spill in 2010 happened because of gross negligence even though they were regulated by the government. So why would you play with fire and give corporations to do what they want? Why should we need to have a mess to clean up before a corporation is regulated?

This is why government intervention in the economy is necessary, and why government intervention in general is necessary - because certain mistakes are intolerable and shouldn't even happen in the first place.

I dont want to appear heartless as well by seeming to not care. I guess we should just go with public police then if you all are so adamant about it.

 

[Kanzler]

I dont want to appear heartless as well by seeming to not care. I guess we should just go with public police then if you all are so adamant about it.

No - what I meant is that a private police force could get away with not providing adequate protection to poorer neighbourhoods as long as they appeared like they were providing adequate protection. It's like how McDonalds promotes healthy eating. Actually investing in healthy meals is not profitable for McDonalds, which is why they continue to serve McFlurries and Junior Chickens (although I love Junior Chicken). It's not a jab at you.

 

[gimmepie]

I have a better idea. First:
1). Arm our citizens. Comes in handy when batshit extremists try attacking over theological issues.
2). State Police. I'd rather have uniform protection around our nation than glaring weak spots where evil can reside.
3). Moderate government intervention to inhibit the growth of monopolies, with heavy regulations on edible foods. Other regulations should regard the environment so we don't become China.

Seems legit, right?

1. How about no? Arming citizens is a sure fire way to lose a shitload of citizens. It's precisely this that's wrong with America's current stance on gun control and I don't want our nation to be anything like that. I don't want to see anything like the second amendment in our constitution please.

2. Agreed. Very agreed. Sorry BadSheep but it looks like you're outvoted xD

3. This isn't really something we're talking about right now. This is something to bring up once we start working with bills.