Not enough cops

[Argus]

Do you know that Canada's national average for police officers is 188

per 100k population (source stats canada june 2004 daily)?

That is 20% lower than in the United States and Australia, and about

25% lower than in England and Wales. The rate in Germany is 289 cops

per 100k, and in France, it's 381 per 100k

If we compare my city, Ottawa, to the French, we'd need to go from just under 1500 police to nearly 4500. Gee, maybe we wouldn't have one of the lowest solution rates for crimes in Canada then?

The underpolicing has led to a steady deterioration in the safety of Canadians. Many smaller crimes, and even many larger ones go unpunished. Criminal gangs flourish, fraud goes unchecked.

And yet in every single public opinion poll Canadians say they want more police and are willing to pay for it. So why don't we have them? Is it a failure of will among the people, or among politicians? Or does it have something to do with the left wing mindset, which Trudeau once aptly described as "bleeding hearts who can't stand to see men with guns in the streets".

[Hugo]

I'll tell you something interesting, Argus. In January 1971, the NYPD went on strike for a week. Do you know what happened to the crime rate during that week? It dropped slightly.

It doesn't matter how many cops you take away as long as you don't place any restriction on a citizen's right to defend himself against criminals or contract for his defence. They'll find a way.

[August1991]

Argus, you must provide links for those stats.

[Cartman]

I'll tell you something interesting, Argus. In January 1971, the NYPD went on strike for a week. Do you know what happened to the crime rate during that week? It dropped slightly.

With all due respect Hugo, is this not a given? I mean, if there are no police to catch criminals then there will clearly be a lower crime rate. I suppose if you eliminated the police altogether, the crime rate would be zero but that is not the same as saying that crime ceased to exist. Even if reported crime is what is used as the "crime rate", if people know the police are on strike, they will probably not bother to report the fact that they were victims of property crimes which are the majority of crimes in this country. Violent crime comprises only about 12% of all reported crime in Canada.

does it have something to do with the left wing mindset, which Trudeau once aptly described as "bleeding hearts who can't stand to see men with guns in the streets".

I find this an absolutely fascinating observation because I have always been pissed off at the lack of policing and attributed it to a right-wing agenda which demands lower social expenditures (which include the police, courts and prison system) and greater personal freedom rather than stricter state control. I would agree that there is a lack of policing in our society and it has the potential to become a much more serious problem. Of course, we have to police the police as well.

(ps does it not make sense to have fewer police than the US though? If you compare Toronto with Chicago for instance, the latter has a homicide rate per 100,000 over 5 times as high as the former).

[Hugo]

With all due respect Hugo, is this not a given? I mean, if there are no police to catch criminals then there will clearly be a lower crime rate. I suppose if you eliminated the police altogether, the crime rate would be zero but that is not the same as saying that crime ceased to exist.

The police were "eliminated altogether" for a week and the crime rate wasn't zero. People were still reporting crimes, so that's the end of this argument. You also forget that if there are no police, not only may people not report as many crimes, but may also prevent more crimes themselves if they know there's no police to help them. I've read several accounts of the 1971 strike and none even hinted that actual crimes may have increased in any way during it. There's just no evidence to suggest that they did, be it from officially reported crimes or anything else.

Consider another example.

"On West 135th Street between Seventh and Eighth Avenues is the station house of the 82nd Precinct of the New York City Police Department. Yet the august presence of the station house did not prevent a rash of night robberies of various stores on the block. Finally, in the winter of 1966, fifteen merchants on the block banded together to hire a guard to walk the block all night; the guard was hired from the Leroy V. George protection company to provide the police protection not forthcoming from their property taxes."

Murray Rothbard, from William C. Wooldridge, Uncle Sam the Monopoly Man

There was also a study done a while ago which demonstrated that armed civilians were more successful in driving off, wounding, restraining or killing robbers and assailants than armed police officers were.

Violent crime comprises only about 12% of all reported crime in Canada.

In 1996, 69% of reported crimes were violent or against property. That means 31% were, basically, not crimes at all. This is a vast waste of time and resources. It's completely pointless to be spending countless millions of dollars and man-hours hunting people who grow marijuana or won't wear a motorcycle helmet.

I have always been pissed off at the lack of policing and attributed it to a right-wing agenda which demands lower social expenditures... and greater personal freedom rather than stricter state control. I would agree that there is a lack of policing... it has the potential to become a much more serious problem.

If you go to your mall, you'll find that crimes and robberies are very low or nonexistent, and the guards are courteous, respectful, helpful and polite. They definitely don't intimidate anybody. This is because the mall hires a private police force. In public areas, however, crime is widespread and police are frequently arrogant, intimidating and unpleasant.

The right-wing agenda for lower social expenditures and greater personal freedom can also be seen as an argument for less state police and greater private policing. As with all things, free-market measures get the job done a lot better, faster and cheaper.

[Argus]

Argus, you must provide links for those stats.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

stats canada police in canada

European police numbers

The second is less official. I was only looking for an indication of what police numbers were in other European countries. You have to do a search on "performance" to get down to the particular item which states police statistics in France and Germany.

Another site is here National police stats

The figures are slightly different, perhaps because this is taken from a UN study in 2000. But they show Canada's police numbers per pop as being well below European countries even then. It seems that in the last five years we have gotten further behind or perhaps they're just hiring more cops.

[Argus]

does it have something to do with the left wing mindset, which Trudeau once aptly described as "bleeding hearts who can't stand to see men with guns in the streets".

I find this an absolutely fascinating observation because I have always been pissed off at the lack of policing and attributed it to a right-wing agenda which demands lower social expenditures (which include the police, courts and prison system) and greater personal freedom rather than stricter state control.

I think that generally speaking right wingers like police and want more of them. Right wingers are always concerned about crime and justice, and I know of none which don't want stricter punishments, particularly for violent crime, and more police. Left wingers in general tend to be less trustful of police and much more suspicious of them. On city councils where budgets are drawn up I rather doubt the left wing councilors would be pushing for more police (never happened here) as opposed to more social spending. I don't believe police and courts have been considered a part of social spending by left or right wingers.

(ps does it not make sense to have fewer police than the US though?  If you compare Toronto with Chicago for instance, the latter has a homicide rate per 100,000 over 5 times as high as the former).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but does it make sense to have far, far less police per pop than England, Australia, Germany, France, Italy, etc.?

[Argus]

I'll tell you something interesting, Argus. In January 1971, the NYPD went on strike for a week. Do you know what happened to the crime rate during that week? It dropped slightly.

It doesn't matter how many cops you take away as long as you don't place any restriction on a citizen's right to defend himself against criminals or contract for his defence. They'll find a way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not going to get into what circumstances at that time might have led to this statistic, even if it were valid. People might have spent a lot more time then watching over their premises. Shopkeepers might have stayed to watch out for their shops all night, for example. Commercial buildings might have ensured there were people there all night, as well. Who knows.

I will say that any suggestion that less police is going to equal less crime is absurd.

[Argus]

"On West 135th Street between Seventh and Eighth Avenues is the station house of the 82nd Precinct of the New York City Police Department. Yet the august presence of the station house did not prevent a rash of night robberies of various stores on the block. Finally, in the winter of 1966, fifteen merchants on the block banded together to hire a guard to walk the block all night; the guard was hired from the Leroy V. George protection company to provide the police protection not forthcoming from their property taxes."

Murray Rothbard, from William C. Wooldridge, Uncle Sam the Monopoly Man

Naturally if you have someone on the spot that's going to be better protection. I'd suggest that with French police figures being more than double that of the US it's more likely there'll be a French Gendarme walking up and down the street watching shops than a Canadian Constable or American patrolman.

There was also a study done a while ago which demonstrated that armed civilians were more successful in driving off, wounding, restraining or killing robbers and assailants than armed police officers were.

No doubt. No doubt they were actually on the scene when crimes took place, too.

That's a bit of an aid in catching criminals, don't you think? In many American and Canadian cities police response for robbery calls can take ten to twenty minutes - and burglary calls take even longer. More than enough time for thieves to be gone. Increasing the numbers of police would lead to faster police response times and more police available for investigations.

If you go to your mall, you'll find that crimes and robberies are very low or nonexistent, and the guards are courteous, respectful, helpful and polite. They definitely don't intimidate anybody. This is because the mall hires a private police force. In public areas, however, crime is widespread and police are frequently arrogant, intimidating and unpleasant.

Uhm, given the mall is a closed environment under observation of security cameras this is all rather obvious. But there is no way you can logically infer from this that private police would do a better job out in the city itself. Not unless their numbers were much higher than the present police numbers.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Right wingers are always concerned about crime and justice, ...

Well, that's half right, anyway.

Y'know what I find ironic, however? Argus, you make essentially the same arguments FOR more police as he opposes in regard to healthcare.

[Hugo]

I'm not going to get into what circumstances at that time might have led to this statistic, even if it were valid. People might have spent a lot more time then watching over their premises. Shopkeepers might have stayed to watch out for their shops all night, for example. Commercial buildings might have ensured there were people there all night, as well. Who knows.

Aren't these all just examples of people providing their own policing without the necessity of a state police force?

I will say that any suggestion that less police is going to equal less crime is absurd.

You're constructing a strawman argument. I did not say that less police equals less crime. I am saying that less state police will equal less crime. I've given you enough examples of private policing that you should be able to grasp the notion of it.

Naturally if you have someone on the spot that's going to be better protection. I'd suggest that with French police figures being more than double that of the US it's more likely there'll be a French Gendarme walking up and down the street watching shops than a Canadian Constable or American patrolman.

If you agree that it's better to have someone on the spot, why is it important that he be a state policeman rather than a private guard?

No doubt they were actually on the scene when crimes took place, too.

Read carefully. The policemen were on the scene too. They were less successful in stopping crimes than armed civilians. There's no hidden information here.

That's a bit of an aid in catching criminals, don't you think? In many American and Canadian cities police response for robbery calls can take ten to twenty minutes - and burglary calls take even longer. More than enough time for thieves to be gone. Increasing the numbers of police would lead to faster police response times and more police available for investigations.

Again, you assume your conclusion. Why would state police be better for this than private guards? Moreover, if civilians are armed, doesn't that effectively turn everyone into a policeman?

Uhm, given the mall is a closed environment under observation of security cameras this is all rather obvious. But there is no way you can logically infer from this that private police would do a better job out in the city itself.

Why, because the state has decreed that "the city" is public property? Surely this is an argument against the notion of collectively owned property, then! My point is that where private policing is undertaken it works better than where the state police serve instead. Your answer to this, bizarrely, seems to be to expand the scope and numbers of the state police, which leads us to, as Sweal has divined:

Argus, you make essentially the same arguments FOR more police as he opposes in regard to healthcare.

Yup. In healthcare, Argus regards the public system as having failed, and he thinks we should try a private one. He lambasts you, Sweal, for proposing to throw more money at the public system. In policing, he regards the public system as having failed, so we should throw more money at it. He lambasts me for proposing to try more private policing.

It is quite ironic.

[August1991]

This comparison of health care and policing is simply wrong. The two services are fundamentally different.

If my own personal, private security guard catches a thief breaking into my home, my neighbours benefit because there is one less thief roaming the streets (and other potential thieves are deterred from getting into the thieving business).

If my own personal, private medical doctor fixes my broken leg, this does not affect the chance that my neighbours will break a leg.

Health care is largely a private good. Policing is largely a public good.

Nevertheless, there are reasons the State could be involved in health care and the private sector involved in policing.

----

Most small towns have one firehall with a firetruck or two bought and maintained with compulsory municipal taxes. In theory, this could all be done privately and homeowners could choose whether to pay for fire prevention service. But a fire in one house risks spreading to another house. This means the service and taxes (insurance premium) are compulsory. (In Libertarian parlance, if you live in the town, men with guns will initiate force to collect money from you.) Furthermore, it makes no sense to have two firehalls in a small town.

Now then, it may well be that the firehall has been privatized or is operated as a private club. IOW, the firemen are non-State employees (or even volunteers) but fire prevention services are still a public good, like policing services. But not like health services.

[Hugo]

If my own personal, private medical doctor fixes my broken leg, this does not affect the chance that my neighbours will break a leg.

On the other hand, in treating you the doctor will get experience he could then use to give better service to your neighbours. Maybe not so true for a broken leg, but consider the case of pioneering surgical procedures, drug trials and so forth. It isn't the case that public goods are always separable from private goods. Everyone who is buying a plasma TV now is helping drive the price down for the benefit of potential consumers later. In the same way, people who use a hospital today are driving the price down for people who will use it tomorrow.

Nevertheless, there are reasons the State could be involved in health care and the private sector involved in policing.

It is already more involved than the State. In the USA there are more private security guards than state policemen and more cases are settled through private arbitration than through state courts.

In theory, this could all be done privately and homeowners could choose whether to pay for fire prevention service. But a fire in one house risks spreading to another house.

Yes, and this is a method of tackling public goods problems. In another example, private policemen would be interested in catching criminals that hadn't done anything to their clients because the chances are that, eventually, they would. Similarly, private firefighters would be interested in fighting fires that broke out in the homes of non-clients to negate risk to actual clients.

Consider too that having publicly funded fire departments artificially lowers the cost of risky behaviour likely to start fires. You pay taxes regardless, so what's the difference if you have a wood stove, no smoke detector, highly flammable furnishings, and smoke in bed? The financial cost of your stupidity is borne by other taxpayers. However, private insurance companies generally charge higher premiums to risky clients and offer discounts to sensible ones. This has the effect of rewarding sensible behaviour and making risk-taking individuals bear the actual costs of their actions themselves.

Furthermore, it makes no sense to have two firehalls in a small town.

If it wouldn't make sense, it wouldn't happen. You assume here that the free market is irrational and State action perfectly rational and efficient when all the evidence shows that the exact opposite is true, the free market is very efficient and the State very wasteful.

[Argus]

Right wingers are always concerned about crime and justice, ...

Well, that's half right, anyway.

Y'know what I find ironic, however? Argus, you make essentially the same arguments FOR more police as he opposes in regard to healthcare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a difference. Throwing more money into health care doesn't work. We've seen that numerous times. We're also already paying a lot for health care in comparison to most of the world. Health care needs to be reorganized in light of economic realities. There needs to be some user fees, for example.

But more police does translate into safer cities. Not every time, but usually. And the lack of police has been repeatedly identified as a major problem with regard to crime and crime prevention in this country.

Besides, like other health care zealots you misunderstand my position. I'm not opposed to publich health care. I support public health care very strongly. I just don't support a version of public health care that doesn't work.

it's like gun control. I support gun control. I don't support the gun registry. Why not? Because it's hideously expensive and ludicrously ineffective all at the same time.

My stands on health care and crime are not ideologically driven. They stem from looking at things realistically. You might try it some time.

[Argus]

I'm not going to get into what circumstances at that time might have led to this statistic, even if it were valid. People might have spent a lot more time then watching over their premises. Shopkeepers might have stayed to watch out for their shops all night, for example. Commercial buildings might have ensured there were people there all night, as well. Who knows.

Aren't these all just examples of people providing their own policing without the necessity of a state police force?

That's irrelevent. The reason you can't have a thousand privately run police services in a city is the chaos which would result. Do you really think communication between what are essentially competing private businesses are going to run smoothly? If one police service is after a criminal do you think they're going to be able to contact the other 999 police services and get full cooperation? Nope. Because every one of them will be trying to demonstrate their own effectiveness in comparison to the others. None will have an overriding interest in seeing its competition do well.

The upshot is a criminal, once out of one particular block patrolled by one partcular police group is pretty much free and clear.

Then there is the problem of holding all these organizations to some standard of training and responsible use of force. What am I to do if some guy in a uniform stops me at gunpoint? Is he legitimate or not? Am I to allow him to arrest me and take me away in handcuffs?

Oh wait, I can always sue them, right? Sure. Lawsuits will keep all these keystone cop organizations in line.

Naturally if you have someone on the spot that's going to be better protection. I'd suggest that with French police figures being more than double that of the US it's more likely there'll be a French Gendarme walking up and down the street watching shops than a Canadian Constable or American patrolman.

If you agree that it's better to have someone on the spot, why is it important that he be a state policeman rather than a private guard?

I don't have any ideological problem with private guards in addition to public police. If someone wants to pay to add their own security guard that's great. I'm all for it. But their authority is not the authority of the state, and I don't want it to be. I don't want some mall cop able to drag me off to their own private prison and lock me up for a few weeks on whatever pretext. And you shouldn't be either. You think violation of civil and human rights is a problem with public police? And yet you want to give that power to people who are not subject to public scrutiny and influence? You want to give me the power to break down your door, club you to the floor, handcuff you, and drag you off to my own private prison?

No doubt they were actually on the scene when crimes took place, too.

Read carefully. The policemen were on the scene too. They were less successful in stopping crimes than armed civilians. There's no hidden information here.

I don't understand what you're talking about. You're suggesting that having an armed security guard or some guy with a gloch standing in front of a jewellery store is more of a deterence than a cop standing there? I don't see it.

Uhm, given the mall is a closed environment under observation of security cameras this is all rather obvious. But there is no way you can logically infer from this that private police would do a better job out in the city itself.

Why, because the state has decreed that "the city" is public property?

No, because I can't see how it could possibly work. Look, a robbery! Hmm, I wonder who I'm supposed to call? Which of the nine hundred police services is responsible for security on this block? And where's their nearest car? Halfway across the city, perhaps?

Argus, you make essentially the same arguments FOR more police as he opposes in regard to healthcare.

Yup. In healthcare, Argus regards the public system as having failed, and he thinks we should try a private one.

Nope. Sorry, but I am resolutely opposed to a private system. I want to introduce user fees and changes to the public system, and add in private health care providers with some private money. Ie, let the government pay its usual fee for an MRI to the private clinic I go to, and then I will add in another fifty or a hundred bucks (for example). Let the government pay its usual fee to a doctor at a private clinic to see me, but I will pay an extra twenty bucks on top of that so it will be profitable to keep the clinic open all night.

[Argus]

He lambasts you, Sweal, for proposing to throw more money at the public system. In policing, he regards the public system as having failed, so we should throw more money at it.

Not the same thing. Private medical care does not need central organization, planning and instant back and forth communications. The only thing a private doctor needs from the state is an occasional warning on failed pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. A cop needs to be in instant contact with a central agency in order to coordinate manhunts, criminal information, backup, police chases, etc. And as I said above, if someone is going to be handcuffing my daughter and dragging her off to jail, it should be an agent of the state, not an agent of WalMart.

Besides, I don't regard public policing as having failed. I think that by and large police organizations are reasonably efficient and effective. I think they are simply understaffed. The problems with public health care go well beyond staffing levels, as you well know.

[Hugo]

But more police does translate into safer cities. Not every time, but usually.

Again, police does not equal State police.

The reason you can't have a thousand privately run police services in a city is the chaos which would result.

Ah, the old Marxist "chaos in production" argument. I never took you for a Marxist, Argus. Perhaps you'll demonstrate the chaos which plagues industries like mobile phones, computers, the Internet, car manufacture, foodstuffs etc. where many different companies compete for the same customers.

Do you really think communication between what are essentially competing private businesses are going to run smoothly?

Why would they not? It's in their interests to share information. Apple and Microsoft co-operate where it is in their interests to do so, although they appear to be irreconcileable competitors. You make the mistake of assuming that government must co-ordinate things. You forget that the free market is fully capable of co-ordinating dozens of companies, thousands of workers and tens of thousands of components to bring you, for instance, a car in a very efficient way. On the other hand, the "organizing" work of the State in the USSR produced the very chaos and inefficiency you say that free markets will produce and the State can abrogate.

Quite simply, the empirical evidence runs completely counter to your argument.

If one police service is after a criminal do you think they're going to be able to contact the other 999 police services and get full cooperation? Nope. Because every one of them will be trying to demonstrate their own effectiveness in comparison to the others.

A police company that is unwilling to work with other police companies is going to be very inefficient and expensive, and will thus alienate its customers. It will soon fail.

The upshot is a criminal, once out of one particular block patrolled by one partcular police group is pretty much free and clear.

Again, your arguments only work if you assume people are incredibly stupid and myopic, and if that's your view, why would granting these stupid and myopic people monopolistic State power help anything? Surely, if people are so idiotic, it would be best to curb their power rather than expand it.

First of all, it's in the interests of police group A to catch a criminal pursued by police group B, because A never knows when they'll want a similar favour from B. Both can deliver a better service to their customers by co-operating. Secondly, group A would have to be idiots to assume that the criminal is only going to offend against the clients of group B. They stand to save a lot of money if they help to apprehend this criminal before he aggresses against their clients, and prevention is far cheaper than punishment.

Consider mobile phone companies. They compete, but they share information and make their networks transparent to the competition. A mobile phone company whose network was incompatible with anybody else's wouldn't last very long at all.

Then there is the problem of holding all these organizations to some standard of training and responsible use of force.

The free market has proven itself perfectly capable of producing standards of training and responsibility for employees in all walks of life. Even having a good credit rating is a measure of character, which is why many employers run credit checks against applicants. Consider IT training. Most certifications are from private companies like Microsoft, Novell, Cisco or Red Hat.

Again, the free market will establish what a good certification is. If a company that trains security guards acquires a reputation for certifying unskilled thugs, it will soon go out of business because no police company will want to hire its graduates, and soon nobody will want to be certified by this training company because it just costs them money and does not get them a job.

Right now, the State just decides arbitrarily what makes a good standard of police character and training. Considering the accidental shootings and wrongful arrests that policemen make, the widespread corruption of the police force, the ineptitude of the police in crisis situations (Columbine, anyone?) and so forth, evidently this standard isn't very good. But there's no direct way for the citizenry to demand better. All they can do is hope that one political party picks a method of police training reform that they like and that the rest of that party's platform isn't so incompatible with the rest of their views that they must reject it anyway.

What am I to do if some guy in a uniform stops me at gunpoint? Is he legitimate or not? Am I to allow him to arrest me and take me away in handcuffs? Oh wait, I can always sue them, right? Sure. Lawsuits will keep all these keystone cop organizations in line.

What keeps state police in line, exactly? You can be arrested, imprisoned, tried and then found innocent, and having lost weeks or months of your life languishing in jail for doing nothing wrong, you are denied any compensation and those who wrongfully arrested and detained you are not liable in any way.

I fail to see how a private system could do any worse in this regard.

But their authority is not the authority of the state, and I don't want it to be. I don't want some mall cop able to drag me off to their own private prison and lock me up for a few weeks on whatever pretext.

You're more comfortable with State police being able to drag you off to their own private prison (and it is private - it's just monopolised) and lock you up for a few weeks on whatever pretext? Why? At least with a private system you could call your own police and have them insist that you be tried immediately or released immediately, otherwise, your police will assume that you have been kidnapped and attempt to rescue you.

Where's the checks and balances against State police?

In any event, it's highly unlikely that imprisonment would be used by a private judicial system. It's expensive and doesn't compensate the victim. More likely is a return to the concept of restitution for wrongdoing.

And yet you want to give that power to people who are not subject to public scrutiny and influence?

They are subject to the most public scrutiny and influence of all: consumers. A police company that abuses its powers will be deserted by its customers and go bankrupt in short order. Consider that Enron, once revealed as dishonest, was deserted by its stockholders and investors in a manner of hours. Its existence as a company was over before the government even got wind of what was going on.

I don't understand what you're talking about. You're suggesting that having an armed security guard or some guy with a gloch standing in front of a jewellery store is more of a deterence than a cop standing there? I don't see it.

I'm saying that a security guard has more incentive to do something about it. If his client is robbed he'll probably lose his job. On the other hand, a State policeman can turn his back on a great many crimes and still be secure in his position.

[Hugo]

Continued:

No, because I can't see how it could possibly work. Look, a robbery! Hmm, I wonder who I'm supposed to call? Which of the nine hundred police services is responsible for security on this block?

Oh look, I'm in a car accident! Which of the nine hundred insurance companies do I call?

Answer: your insurance company. Next silly question.

If your police company's coverage is inadequate they could either contract out to other police companies (much as companies like Dell and Microsoft subcontract their support and sales departments out to telemarketing companies), or they can watch their clients move to companies with better coverage. A mobile phone company that only covers 1% of the country isn't likely to stay in business very long, is it?

In any event, if you're robbed in a street and whoever polices that street fails to do anything about it, those who pay for that policing are likely to find another police company. So a private police force will want to be vigilant, and if you're robbed on a street, it's likely that the question of who polices it will be answered when a guard rushes to your aid.

Nope. Sorry, but I am resolutely opposed to a private system. I want to introduce user fees and changes to the public system, and add in private health care providers with some private money.

Yes, Fidel. Whatever you say.

Private medical care does not need central organization, planning and instant back and forth communications... A cop needs to be in instant contact with a central agency in order to coordinate manhunts, criminal information, backup, police chases, etc.

Mobile phone companies need to be transparently communicable with each other and to have full compatibility. Again, market forces have arranged this perfectly. If a given measure is more efficient and judged to offer better value by consumers, it will happen in a free market. After all, an opportunity that isn't being exploited is an open invitation for any entrepreneur.

Besides, I don't regard public policing as having failed. I think that by and large police organizations are reasonably efficient and effective. I think they are simply understaffed.

Based on what? I've already cited an example where the cutting of manpower to zero had no effect on the crime rate. Where is your evidence?

[Black Dog]

Interesting debate here.

And yet you want to give that power to people who are not subject to public scrutiny and influence?

How much influence and scrutiny does the public currently have over the cops? How many times have you heard of cops getting off for crimes that would land ordinary citizens in jail for a significant period of time (Amadou Diallo anyone?)

[August1991]

If my own personal, private medical doctor fixes my broken leg, this does not affect the chance that my neighbours will break a leg.

On the other hand, in treating you the doctor will get experience he could then use to give better service to your neighbours. Maybe not so true for a broken leg, but consider the case of pioneering surgical procedures, drug trials and so forth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the doctor invented a new procedure, he'd in theory be compensated through a patent. In any case, your argument justifies government intervention.

In theory, this could all be done privately and homeowners could choose whether to pay for fire prevention service. But a fire in one house risks spreading to another house.

Consider too that having publicly funded fire departments artificially lowers the cost of risky behaviour likely to start fires. You pay taxes regardless, so what's the difference if you have a wood stove, no smoke detector, highly flammable furnishings, and smoke in bed? The financial cost of your stupidity is borne by other taxpayers. However, private insurance companies generally charge higher premiums to risky clients and offer discounts to sensible ones. This has the effect of rewarding sensible behaviour and making risk-taking individuals bear the actual costs of their actions themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your point is equally true with private insurance.

But Hugo, you still don't see why compulsory fire insurance is required. The fire department will stop a fire in your house even if you have opted out of the insurance scheme because a fire in your house could spread elsewhere. Knowing this, everyone would opt out because they'd be covered anyway. (That was the argument I made about pleading poverty.) Hence, the need for obligatory coverage - in this case through coercive municipal taxes and a city fire department.

----

Hugo, you frequently compare policing services to cell phone services and, since there are several cell phone services, you imply that there could be several competing policing services.

How about comparing local policing services to local water or electricity distribution? When people buy a house, would it make sense to offer to connect them to the electricity grid of Firm A or Firm B? IOW, would it make sense to have several water pipes or electrical networks in a city?

----

I'm willing to engage in theoretical discussions but I must admit that I prefer Argus' pragmatic approach. Who cares whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.

[Hugo]

If the doctor invented a new procedure, he'd in theory be compensated through a patent.

Not under anarcho-capitalism, because it rejects the notion of intellectual property. Property, after all, is rules applied because material goods are inherently scarce. Metaphysical goods aren't scarce, therefore, we don't need rules to allocate them.

But Hugo, you still don't see why compulsory fire insurance is required. The fire department will stop a fire in your house even if you have opted out of the insurance scheme because a fire in your house could spread elsewhere. Knowing this, everyone would opt out because they'd be covered anyway.

A public problem such as this often produces high transaction costs in a market, however, not nearly as high as statist solutions produce. But there are free-market solutions here.

First off, you assume that a private fire department would put out non-client's fires. They probably wouldn't. They'd just stop them spreading to their client's property, create firebreaks, and so on. Therefore there is still an incentive for people to buy a fire insurance policy.

Secondly, it's most likely that services such as fire protection would be bundled with property. Buy a house and you buy a contract with a fire department. Your mortgage company will probably require you to have such a policy or be considered in default. Rent a house and be covered under your landlord's contract. This is how public goods problems in condos are solved.

Another method of bundling is advertising. Coca-Cola might fund a local fire department in exchange for having advertising space on the fire trucks. Plus, they could run TV adverts: "Coca-Cola: protecting your family from fire!" Many companies donate extensively to hospitals and other charities just for the publicity of being able to say that they did so. This is how the public goods problem of broadcast television has been solved, for instance.

Thirdly, you assume that people are not charitable and are entirely selfish 100% of the time. This isn't the case. If people are willing to donate for Ethiopian children they'd probably donate to protect their neighbours from fire, too.

How about comparing local policing services to local water or electricity distribution? When people buy a house, would it make sense to offer to connect them to the electricity grid of Firm A or Firm B? IOW, would it make sense to have several water pipes or electrical networks in a city?

Strawman argument. It's perfectly possible for a company that owns the pipes or power lines to lease them to power production companies. Competition is preserved. If there's only one pipe leading to a house, the owner of that pipe still cannot gouge the customers because, in a free market, the threat of potential competition is ever-present.

As to whether it makes sense to have several pipe or power line networks in a city, if it's more efficient to do it that way, that's what will happen. If it isn't, it won't. The advantage of the free market is that expert minds will be applied to the problem, whereas with the State, the problem will be 'solved' by the decidedly inexpert minds of politicians and bureaucrats.

Who cares whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.

Aren't the issues of whether or not the cat routinely scratches and bites its owners and also sometimes just goes to sleep instead of catching anything also of importance?

[Argus]

The reason you can't have a thousand privately run police services in a city is the chaos which would result.

Ah, the old Marxist "chaos in production" argument. I never took you for a Marxist, Argus. Perhaps you'll demonstrate the chaos which plagues industries like mobile phones, computers, the Internet, car manufacture, foodstuffs etc. where many different companies compete for the same customers.

This is a patently silly argument. None of those groups have to cooperate with each other except on the most basic level. None requires contstant, instanteous communication and cooperation between humans on critical, life and death issues.

Do you really think communication between what are essentially competing private businesses are going to run smoothly?

Why would they not? It's in their interests to share information. Apple and Microsoft co-operate where it is in their interests to do so,

And sabotoge each other where it's in their interests to do so, too. And we're not talking about an occasional meeting to hash out standards on browsers. We're talking about daily critical communication and cooperation at all levels of multiple organizations.

A police company that is unwilling to work with other police companies is going to be very inefficient and expensive, and will thus alienate its customers. It will soon fail.

Bullshit. The entry level cost and the minimum requirements from customers are too low. Provide someone in a uniform to show up when the burglar alarm goes off. Think Rogers. Are they a crappy company? Yep. Are they still succesful? Yep. Do they provide good internet service? Does Bell? Nope. Do they own the lions share of customers? Yep.

I'll start a cop company and splurge on ads featuring a reassuring John Wayne type in a uniform. Customers will flock to my door. I'll lie to them, and backstab all other companies. When I have information on a serial burglar - or rapist in another company's jurisdiction I'll bury it. Let them keep getting bad publicity while I send my marketers into their territory and try to win over customers. If i win over a few then maybe I'll "solve" the crime wave and bask in the publicity while I get in more customers. Capitalism can be a vicious thing even without guns.

The upshot is a criminal, once out of one particular block patrolled by one partcular police group is pretty much free and clear.

Again, your arguments only work if you assume people are incredibly stupid and myopic,

You have a wierdly sanitary vision of Capitalism. You think your company can't act like scum and succeed? Think again. Oh eventually it might fail, after you've made millions and cleared it out. Then when the company goes down, hounded by creditors and bad publicity, you'll move to another city and start another police force with a different name.

You know what's a good example of free market capitalism? Building contractors and renovators. No standards. No licencing. You try to go by word of mouth but you still never know what you're getting. Half of them seem to be either incompetent or crooks - or both. More than half, really. Good luck if you find a capable, honest one and he has time to do your job.

And all those corrupt incompetents out there? They're still making money, still in demand, simply because there's so much business out there and they can change names so rapidly.

First of all, it's in the interests of police group A to catch a criminal pursued by police group B,

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's in my interests to let burglary run rampant in group B's district while mine sits quietly, so that by comparison I look great. Hell, maybe I'll even help him out! Maybe I'll cover for him! And what if the customer who was robbed/raped/ beaten fires his police company? Are they still going to be spending money trying to find the perp? I doubt it.

There are two things which would separate really good police from cheapie firms. One is people, highly skilled, disciplined, motivated employees. The second is information. The company with the best information resources is going to be the best police force. And you expect these companies to freely share their information resources on an everyday basis? Not bloody likely.

Then there is the problem of holding all these organizations to some standard of training and responsible use of force.

The free market has proven itself perfectly capable of producing standards of training and responsibility for employees in all walks of life.

On what planet? Restaurants don't often poison their customers because of government inspections. You can be reasonably sure buildings and houses won't fall down because of government codes and inspections. But when you need to hire a mechanic or plumber its even money he'll be a crook. How the hell is it Canadian Tire keeps getting customers into its auto bays? Everyone knows how bad they are! Does that financial planner of yours know what he's doing? Is your lawyer a crook or incompetent? Security guards? The closest thing to private cops, and most of them couldn't find their asses with both hands and a map.

too many quotes for system - continued in next message

[Argus]

Again, the free market will establish what a good certification is. If a company that trains security guards acquires a reputation for certifying unskilled thugs, it will soon go out of business because no police company will want to hire its graduates

Oh of course they will, provided they're cheaper.

Considering the accidental shootings and wrongful arrests that policemen make, the widespread corruption of the police force, the ineptitude of the police in crisis situations (Columbine, anyone?) and so forth

And you think this will somehow be improved by contracting out the job to hundreds of private forces with varying levels of training and intelligence, different standards, different procedures, all in competition with each other, and all wanting to undercut each others prices?!

You're more comfortable with State police being able to drag you off to their own private prison (and it is private - it's just monopolised) and lock you up for a few weeks on whatever pretext? Why? At least with a private system you could call your own police and have them insist that you be tried immediately or released immediately, otherwise, your police will assume that you have been kidnapped and attempt to rescue you.

Ah, the thrill of firefights between different police forces who don't agree on the evidence or guilt of one of their clients!

In any event, it's highly unlikely that imprisonment would be used by a private judicial system. It's expensive and doesn't compensate the victim. More likely is a return to the concept of restitution for wrongdoing.

Oh lovely. So we have private companies who can make a profit out of putting me on a work farm? Perhaps you'd like to bring back the poor house? Debt bondage?

You are forgetting that there is no room in Capitalism for any motive but one; profit. The public interest matters not a whit. Suppose a chain of strip clubs hires a given police service to protect them and look after them? Fine. But that chain is also a den of prostitution and drug dealing. Is the police service going to do anything about that when the client doesn't want it to? What's the incentive?

If it becomes notorious there's bad publicity, perhaps. But that's only if it becomes notorious. And suppose this particular police service specialises in "policing" places like that?

Kickbacks and payouts to police to look the other way used to be commonplace. Now with a police service whose only purpose for existence is making a profit they'd become commonplace again.

Sorry, it won't work. Not a flipping chance in hell.

[mcqueen625]

Why does crime go unpunished?

Pure and simple we have allowed the appointment of an unaccountable, liberal minded, bleeding-heart judiciary, and given them far too much disgression in sentencing of individuals for some pretty horrendous crimes, IE; Karla Holmolka, Karl Toft, and the list goes on and on.

We have people being sentenced to house arrest after killing someone. Case in point happened during the sentencing in Saint John, NB for a 19 year old who climbed behind the wheel of his vehicle drunk as a loot, after partying for hours. He sped out the highway, and hit a broken down taxi-driver who was standing behind his car waiting for assistance. The 19 year old immediately left the scene and didn't even bother to offer assistance to the injured driver who died a couple of days after the accident from the injuries he sustained in the hit and run. Who knows, this man life may have been saved if assistance was provided immediately.

The bottom line is that after the bleeding-heart judge raked the 19 year old over the coals for a few minutes, he promounced a sentence of 2 years of House Arrest. What a travesty of justice! This young man made a choice to get drunk, and he also made a conscious choice to get behind the wheel of his car. That stupid choice resulted in the death of a husband and father, and it was completely peventable. For causing the death of another human being this guy get's house arrest. I don't call that justice!

[Hugo]

None of those groups have to cooperate with each other except on the most basic level.

What's the most basic level? Co-ordinating thousands of workers and millions of components from Germany to Taiwan to produce a car? Doesn't sound very basic to me. I doubt you could do it. There are a great many industries where the complexity of the operation requires far greater co-ordination than running a police force. Airlines, for instance. You have to co-ordinate hundreds of flights, thousands of employees, tens of thousands of passengers, around the globe, every day, and it all has to fall in line with plans you made a year ago, because some people book tickets that far in advance and don't want any disruption of their travel plans. And it all has to run within a given parameter of seamlessness because the airline business is very dependent on word of mouth.

You think the State police can do this? If a piece of luggage goes missing it's usually back with it's owner in 48 hours. Compare the number of pieces of luggage never found again to the number of crimes never solved, or solved so late it doesn't matter anyway (Holly Jones, Cecilia Zhang).

None requires contstant, instanteous communication and cooperation between humans on critical, life and death issues.

And the State police excel at this? Pull the other one. Their incompetence is legendary. Think of the Columbine shootings. Five SWAT teams stand by doing nothing while children are being shot.

And sabotoge each other where it's in their interests to do so, too. And we're not talking about an occasional meeting to hash out standards on browsers.

When have Apple and Microsoft sabotaged each other, exactly? Is it considered "sabotage" to try and offer a better product?

Think Rogers. Are they a crappy company? Yep. Are they still succesful? Yep.

Have they received a State grant of monopoly that removes the need for them to be particularly competitive? Yep. Moreover, I'd like to see some evidence for your libellous comments against them.

I'll start a cop company and splurge on ads featuring a reassuring John Wayne type in a uniform. Customers will flock to my door. I'll lie to them, and backstab all other companies.

You can lie to customers, but that only works once. Think Enron. They lied, and got away with it - for a while. Then they paid a very heavy price.

Capitalism can be a vicious thing even without guns.

How can nonviolence be vicious? Moreover, State power relies on guns. How can that be less vicious than nonviolence?

You have a wierdly sanitary vision of Capitalism. You think your company can't act like scum and succeed? Think again. Oh eventually it might fail, after you've made millions and cleared it out.

I think you have confused capitalism with statist neomercantilism. I think you'll find that the worst offenders in the corporate world are all recipients of State pork, government contracts and grants of monopoly power.

Then when the company goes down, hounded by creditors and bad publicity, you'll move to another city and start another police force with a different name.

Assuming your creditors and the press are far too stupid to figure out where you've gone. You have a very funny view of humanity: alternately intelligent enough to conduct massively complex co-ordinations of activity, and so incredibly moronic that they couldn't track a con-man from one city to another.

You know what's a good example of free market capitalism? Building contractors and renovators. No standards. No licencing. You try to go by word of mouth but you still never know what you're getting. Half of them seem to be either incompetent or crooks - or both. More than half, really. Good luck if you find a capable, honest one and he has time to do your job.

Perhaps if the government hadn't made so many programs to push people away from trade jobs and into white-collar work (university funding, civil service expansion, compulsory schooling etc) there would not be so few tradesmen. But because demand far outstrips supply, tradespeople can get away with a lot.

However, this situation is self-correcting. Since the trades pay well, people are attracted to them more. Then supply will rise to meet demand, prices will fall, and tradespeople will have to offer greater integrity.

It's really not hard to find a good tradesperson. When you speak to one, ask for references. If you aren't smart enough to do that, what can I say? You deserve what you get.