Not enough cops

[uOttawaMan]

Who the hell cares if one was an off-duty firefighter? That has nothing to do with the situation.

When's the last time someone says while resisting officers:

"I'm an off-duty garbageman!!! A GARBAGEMAN!!!!"

Being a firefighter doesn't give you some magical get away with crimes status.

[Charles Anthony]

redirected from the Hollywood muscles Canada -- Movie piracy thread

What of the efficency of the system? It's much more effective for my neighbourhood to have a couple cops allocated to it than everyone hiring a bodyguard.

A few things:

1) that can certainly be possible if you are only looking at NUMBERS of cops per area but that would still not require public control

2) everyone would not need to hire their own bodyguard; they could pool resources as they choose. People should be allowed to organize themselves any way they want.

3) are you suggesting that all neighborhoods are treated equally??? I have not lived in every single place in Canada but I have driven through each major city from the furthest East to the furthest West and I am quite comfortable saying that cops do not supervise all parts of town equally.

4) if you are looking at quality of service delivered, there is no reason why the service should be publicly monopolized.

I say this often but it is worth repeating: people condemn anarchy as being unworkable, yet, all they have to do is look at the street and observe it in action, live and well. It seems like we accept anarchy for poor people but at the same time refuse it exists. Remember: there is very little that prevents public cops from avoiding doing their job.

What if we expand that to paramedics and firefighters?

In that case, those services would be directed by a market force.

I do not mean to brush off that topic but rather I still see no compelling reason why they should be publicly monopolized. If those markets were private and with free entry, the service provider would always have the incentive to provide the service the consumers want. Where I live, in the case of an emergency, you have better chances of hitch-hiking to a hospital instead of waiting for an ambulance.

I think law and order is one thing that the economies of scale encourage to remain in the public sphere.

Why? What is unique about the "law and order" market that makes you think so?

Also, what right do you have to impose that value judgment on everybody??

Let me expose you to a particular view on life by comparing the "law and order" services to insurance services. What if I told you that I would rather give up ALL "law and order" service premiums so that I may load up on life insurance instead. My reasoning would be that if I ever die as a result of a lack of "law and order" services, my loved ones would get a huge pay-out. Sure, I would be dead but my loved ones would have absolutely no debt and a healthy annuity to ensure that neither they nor my descendants would ever have to work again in their entire lives. Should I not have the right to spend my money as I see fit?

Also, there is nothing in the current system preventing you from hiring additional protection if you see fit.

That is a feeble objection. You should be able to do better.

The following things prevent me from hiring additional protection:

1) the loss in taxes I must pay to throw into the funding of the public "law and order" services

2) the distortion in the market created by monopolized "law and order" services

Try to make an analogy with books. Imagine a public library opening up right beside a private book store. What do you think in such a system will prevent YOU from being able to buy a book?

Many of these growers are also dealers and if they are willing to sell pot, what else will they do?

You sound like you have a vested interest in demonizing pot.

Nothing confuses the Left-Right divide better than the crime/punishment/revenge/just-us/security/policing/defense industry.

Speaking as a left winger, I generally associate "crime reduction" with multiple solutions. I have no problem funding police forces where it is needed,

I am sure public police officers would be happy to get your support for extra funding. Would that make them Lefties or Righties?

I know its a generalization, but it does seem like the typical right wing approach to raising crime rates is more police, harsher sentences. I prefer an approach that focusses on what happens to make the criminal before the crime is committed, AS WELL as catching them after the fact.

Just out of curiosity: How would you label an approach of letting crooks go free, publicly advertizing their crimes and letting them be subject to the fury of the masses? Would that be a Lefty policy or a Righty policy?