Let's Privatize the Fire Department and Police Department

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
Y'know, if health care in this country is a privilege and not a right, then why is protection from fires and protection from crime?

Oh, sure, I know you think about some silly reasoning about how everyone needs police protection, or for their home and neighborhood to be protected from fire and disaster, but who says so? Is there a constitutional right to a fire department?

Moreover, we all know that the government just loves to mire organizations in bureaucracy, red tape, and expenditures. Last time I had to call the police, it took them 8 months to respond. To be fair, I didn't fill out form 187-EZ properly (damned box 3A!) - but still, had I done so the right way, it would have still been 4 months.

Moreover, government FDs and PDs are totally socialist in design. Their mere existence renders impossible a potentially fruitful market for private corporations; surely, if we allowed Blackwater the opportunity to police your neighborhood, they'd do it faster and cheaper than your PD. Not to mention all the cool weapons they have - it'd be awesome to see them kick some fucking bad-guy ass, instead of gain weight at the Krispy Kreme. No more fat lazy cops under privatization; the market would ensure that.

It's also welfare for poor people; I pay my taxes like a hardworking American; why do I have to subsidize police and fire care for poor people who already suck off the government teat, let alone actually make a contribution to our government's pocketbook? *I'm* footing the bill for them to sit on their duffs and reap the rewards of socialist wealth redistribution in the form of having their burning project 8 homes put out when they forget where their burning crack pipe was.

I can't stand it any more; this country has a hidden red menace that is taking our hardearned tax dollars, preventing the market from taking root and offering cheaper (after all, Blackwater guys are cheaper to hire than actual US soldiers, right? Right!) and more efficient service; more insidious than that is the equality of service FDs and PDs offer.

Now, we don't want this secret agenda exposed, do we, komrade? Well, tough, I say!
 
I will create a "protection" service for all local businesses then. They pay me so they stay safe. Cleavon Little and Gene Wilder will be my enforcers.
 
My mom, who cares for my chronically ill sister (neurological disorder), opposes universal health care. She is typically pretty liberal. Her basis for opposing universal health care comes from her discussions with out-of-country patients at some of the specialists she's gone to -- if my mom and sis had the same universal health care as some other countries do, they may not even have a diagnosis for her, since some of the first doctors she saw had no idea what was wrong with her and assumed she was just some bozo hypochondriac. They told her to see a psychiatrist, no joke. It took about two years and several specialists before they finally found a doctor who was familiar with what she had -- Chiari. Many people who have rare diseases/disorders under universal health care don't have the opportunity to see other doctors when one gives a BS diagnosis (or lack of a diagnosis).

I don't really have an opinion about universal health care, either way, but I'm definitely glad my mom and sis don't live in a country where they still don't know what's wrong with her because the first couple local doctors thought it was nothing...
 
I just got back from a long shift in the ER while fighting a bad case of pharyngitis. With all the meds I'm on, I'm about as lucid as an Indian on peyote staring at a fire.... then I see this post and mykevermin is actually starting to make sense... shit, I must be hallucinating.

But, if playing Army of 2 has taught me anything, it is that an army of private contractors >> a gov't sponsored army. By parallelism, the same should hold for police and fire services.
 
[quote name='BigT']I just got back from a long shift in the ER while fighting a bad case of pharyngitis. With all the meds I'm on, I'm about as lucid as an Indian on peyote staring at a fire.... then I see this post and mykevermin is actually starting to make sense... shit, I must be hallucinating.

But, if playing Army of 2 has taught me anything, it is that an army of private contractors >> a gov't sponsored army. By parallelism, the same should hold for police and fire services.[/QUOTE]

I haven't played Army of Two yet, but I'll be happy to give you my notes on political lessons learned from SSBB. ;)

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']myke... have you been drinking?[/QUOTE]

No, but I was being facetious in the first place.
 
Police can't be privatized because they have to make decisions from an impartial stance over whether or not a law is being broken.

The fire department could be handled privately much in the same way insurance is handled. Oh, you couldn't afford fire coverage? Enjoy your cardboard box!
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Police can't be privatized because they have to make decisions from an impartial stance over whether or not a law is being broken.[/quote]

Hmm. I don't buy it.

The fire department could be handled privately much in the same way insurance is handled. Oh, you couldn't afford fire coverage? Enjoy your cardboard box!
Click to expand...

No doubt. In my head, I really get a kick out of picturing fire trucks standing by idly while a house burns to the ground - their only concern is whether or not the fire spills over into a neighbor's yard, who happens to pay for fire service. :lol:
 
The police enforce government laws and the Constitution so they have to be a public institution.

You're obviously being facetious but privatizing fire departments is actually an intriguing idea; have homeowners and companies subscribe to fire protection just as they would for private security. If you choose not to and your house burns down, tough luck. A private organization would be more efficient to provide better services at a lower cost and it would free up public money for other use. Why couldn't it be privatized?
 
I saw that title and thought "wtf" and then I saw that it was myke.

We already have private police, it's called the Mafia. Now pay your protection money or I can't guarantee that you won't be in a wheelchair tomorrow.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hmm. I don't buy it.[/quote]

Which part? That police should be impartial like a judge or that police are impartial?


[quote name='mykevermin']
No doubt. In my head, I really get a kick out of picturing fire trucks standing by idly while a house burns to the ground - their only concern is whether or not the fire spills over into a neighbor's yard, who happens to pay for fire service. :lol:[/quote]

I know it sounds callous. It is.

I'm looking at it like renter's insurance. If I had a fire in an apartment, the fire department isn't going to replace the property damaged by fire or water. It isn't their job.

For actual buildings ...

If a landlord isn't going to have fire protection insurance on an apartment I want to rent, I may not sign a lease with them.

Also, a homeowner's association could demand fire protection insurance on homes in their area or collect them directly from the homeowners to lure better fire departments with large contracts.
 
[quote name='dopa345']The police enforce government laws and the Constitution so they have to be a public institution.
[/quote]

In theory, it doesn't have to be. In practice, law enforcement by Microsoft may be more biased to enforce software piracy than murder.
 
[quote name='dopa345']You're obviously being facetious but privatizing fire departments is actually an intriguing idea; have homeowners and companies subscribe to fire protection just as they would for private security. If you choose not to and your house burns down, tough luck. A private organization would be more efficient to provide better services at a lower cost and it would free up public money for other use. Why couldn't it be privatized?[/quote]

Thank goodness this isn't the case.
 
[quote name='dopa345']The police enforce government laws and the Constitution so they have to be a public institution.[/quote]

Not necessarily. Why can't a community/municipality solicit bids from private contractors to police their neighborhoods? Privatizing police isn't necessarily an individual endeavor. Moreover, there are plenty of "2.5s" (I still love that term from my adolescence) who can (and perhaps should have on more than one occasion) arrest and prosecute me.

Alternately, we could have an all-volunteer police force. Like that one Police Academy movie ("Citizens on Patrol"). ;)

You're obviously being facetious but privatizing fire departments is actually an intriguing idea; have homeowners and companies subscribe to fire protection just as they would for private security. If you choose not to and your house burns down, tough luck. A private organization would be more efficient to provide better services at a lower cost and it would free up public money for other use. Why couldn't it be privatized?
Click to expand...

It could be just as much of a cost reduction as Blackwater is in Iraq. After all, the government spends less per Blackwater soldier than they do on US soldiers, right?

Not really. Not really at all.
 
robocop10ci5.jpg

"I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation program. Spare parts for the next decade. Who cares if it worked or not?"
 
From now on, I'm going to base all of my domestic and foreign policy on lessons I have learned from video games...

I've already mentioned Army of 2 in terms of a privatized military.

Now, I've got to go with Sam and Max: Freelance Police as an example of how a private police force would be superior. http://www.telltalegames.com/samandmax

Imagine the hilarity that would ensue when this irreverent, gun wielding, and DeSoto driving duo would take on our crime problem head on... with the help of everyone's favorite detective, Flint Paper, and conspiracy theorist, Bosco.
...but seriously, support Telltale... Sam and Max forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Privatize the most poorly run entity in all of the world.....

The United States Postal Service... enough said
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I haven't played Army of Two yet, but I'll be happy to give you my notes on political lessons learned from SSBB. ;)



No, but I was being facetious in the first place.[/quote]
Final smashes can solve any and all problems?
 
[quote name='gobz']Privatize the most poorly run entity in all of the world.....

The United States Postal Service... enough said[/quote]

Haven't you heard of UPS and FedEx?
 
[quote name='gobz']Privatize the most poorly run entity in all of the world.....

The United States Postal Service... enough said[/QUOTE]

The USPS is almost entirely autonomous already.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Y'know, if health care in this country is a privilege and not a right, then why is protection from fires and protection from crime?
[/QUOTE]

You have a faulty premise, Myke. Police do not protect anyone from crime, and the fire department doesn't protect anyone from fire. They show up after a crime or fire has occurred, clean up the mess and investigate any foul play. Ultimately, YOU are the only one responsible for your own protection.

Municipalities have every right to disband their police and fire departments and contract to anyone they choose. Many do just that, opting to "lease" manpower from an adjacent municipality or county "protection" force (which is a misnomer, as previously stated).
 
Yeah, the USPS could probably be abolished, but imagine how bad it would be if competition were disallowed entirely. Thank god we're not entirely socialist in that regard.

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_postal

Police forces on the other hand are a difficult analogy to make for the case of universal health care. Private security forces outnumber police in this country five to one. Private investigation outfits are also allowed in this country. Most people are also capable of protecting themselves and their property since we have gun rights. So there is definitely a big difference here in terms of the presence of competition. I will defend the police and fire department simply because their service to the community is rather limited and simple in concept: put out the fire, enforce the law. Managing a highly technical field like medicine is quite a bit more personalized.

In the case of health care, government-forced health care honestly scares me. In the current government regulated system, the doctor works for the insurance and drug companies. In the event of socialized health care, the doctor works for the government. In the event of a free market, the doctor works for the patient. The free market route seems like the best way to go. Most people who defend socialized health care often forget that we're not currently a free market system. We're heavily regulated and big pharma lobbies politicians, who, upon getting elected, promise to pass bills that benefit them and subsidize them. The books are a mess right now, and I gaurantee you that if the government got full control, things would suck and become far worse. Instead, we need to deregulate and get the third parties out of this. Subsequently, we need a strong free market economy free of socialist planks like the federal reserve manipulating interest rates and driving inflation for the benefit of banker friends and wall street (hell, read any new lately?), and a sound currency tied to gold that holds the government accountable to expenditures. Lastly, get rid of the income tax and tax consumption only. Taxes on production are the stupidest thing on the planet. If all of those things happen (lol, we can only dream), people will be able to afford basic health coverage easily without even needing insurance (maybe catastrophic). Economic policy has a lot to do with why we went from a country capable of raising seven kids on a carpenter's wage to a country of vastly lower relative income. People are fooled into the thinking the opposite from technological advancements.

Once we enter our little hyperinflationary depression by 2012, I have no doubt that capitalism will be blamed. The general public is too ignorant with money to elect someone like Ron Paul. They will be so poor and unable to afford anything that they will allow the government to successfully sell a new string of socialist new deal programs which will tax and inflate the living daylights out of them under the pretense of taking care of them. God, it makes me sick just thinking of history repeating itself...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You have a faulty premise, Myke. Police do not protect anyone from crime, and the fire department doesn't protect anyone from fire. They show up after a crime or fire has occurred, clean up the mess and investigate any foul play. Ultimately, YOU are the only one responsible for your own protection.[/quote]

Not true. Police presence is something associated with reduced crime rates. It's a pretty basic James Q. Wilson premise: where there are beat cops, there is less crime/where there are less beat cops, there is more crime.

Municipalities have every right to disband their police and fire departments and contract to anyone they choose. Many do just that, opting to "lease" manpower from an adjacent municipality or county "protection" force (which is a misnomer, as previously stated).
Click to expand...

Again, those aren't Blackwater dudes in those kick-ass SUVs with gatling mounts on top. That's what I want in my neighborhood.

[quote name='FitzRoy']In the case of health care, government-forced health care honestly scares me. In the current government regulated system, the doctor works for the insurance and drug companies. In the event of socialized health care, the doctor works for the government. In the event of a free market, the doctor works for the patient. The free market route seems like the best way to go. Most people who defend socialized health care often forget that we're not currently a free market system. We're heavily regulated and big pharma lobbies politicians, who, upon getting elected, promise to pass bills that benefit them and subsidize them. The books are a mess right now, and I gaurantee you that if the government got full control, things would suck and become far worse. Instead, we need to deregulate and get the third parties out of this. Subsequently, we need a strong free market economy free of socialist planks like the federal reserve manipulating interest rates and driving inflation for the benefit of banker friends and wall street (hell, read any new lately?), and a sound currency tied to gold that holds the government accountable to expenditures. Lastly, get rid of the income tax and tax consumption only. Taxes on production are the stupidest thing on the planet. If all of those things happen (lol, we can only dream), people will be able to afford basic health coverage easily. Economic policy has a lot to do with why we went from a country capable of raising seven kids on a carpenter's wage to a country of vastly lower relative income. People are fooled into the thinking the opposite from technological advancements.[/QUOTE]

I'm curious by this mess of a paragraph. Please tell me: how do we progress into a full market-based system that does away with health insurance entirely, and also reduces the ability of big pharma to continue to soak us for all we have? Because I'm very curious; I'm as liberal as all get-out, but if you can convince me that full privatization of the market will kill fucking insurance companies dead dead dead, then I'll jump on your bandwagon.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']how do we progress into a full market-based system that does away with health insurance entirely, and also reduces the ability of big pharma to continue to soak us for all we have? Because I'm very curious; I'm as liberal as all get-out, but if you can convince me that full privatization of the market will kill fucking insurance companies dead dead dead, then I'll jump on your bandwagon.[/quote]

I'll start the ball rolling.

The current consumer of medical care is all but completely disconnected with the price of medical procedures.

Post prices like they do at McDonald's and do away with discounts for members of one group or another.

For elective procedures, negotiate the price up front and shop for the best combination of price and quality.
 
As far as blackwater is concerned: unlike soldiers, they're not really accountable under domestic, military, or Iraqi jurisdiction for any crimes they commit. They're not private in the sense that you or I hired them to perform a service. They're a federally compensated corporation being paid with your tax dollars. You didn't choose to give them your money, the government did. Therefore, you can't really correlate their failings to mean private security is bad because they are in a unique loophole where there is no recourse against them.

As far as my "mess" paragraph, the premise being made is simple. The problems that exist today are a result of government intervention in the free market, from bad legislation subsidizing drug companies and reducing competition, and from a myriad of economic policies making you poorer and less able to afford health care in addition to daily living expenses. If you were to turn health care over to the government, government spending will go up. That means taxes and inflation will be even higher than they are now. The cost will simply transfer from one that you choose to pay to one that you are forced to pay under penalty of law. Just like the government decided to take some of your income to pay for blackwater, the government will justify more tax to make these no-bid subsidies to companies under a federal umbrella, because we allow lobbyist influence in the political process and people are too dumb to see past the vote pandering and put 2 and 2 together. Hillary and McCain are the most insincere of the three, but Obama is no saint either. He's a motivational speaker with very little knowledge of economics or the constitution. I mean, the guy voted for the Patriot Act for god's sake.

Long story short, the only universal you need to pay attention to is the universal truth that nobody spends money more wisely than the people who earned it, and that all people are pursuant to their own interests not excepting government officials. Those two truths are the reason you want a constitutional sized federal government. Socialism seems like a good idea when you're young and idealistic, but then you realize that with the nature of man being what it is, transferring the money of the people to federal waste behind well-meaning objectives offers far worse tradeoffs and risks than simply having a free market. Think monopolies are bad? That's exactly what the government is.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34816.html
 
[quote name='FitzRoy']Long story short, the only universal you need to pay attention to is the universal truth that nobody spends money more wisely than the people who earned it, and that all people are pursuant to their own interests not excepting government officials.[/QUOTE]

Those aren't truths, they're axioms. I see what you're suggesting with the parallel with Blackwater, and your point about the influence of lobbyists is well made. Nevertheless, you've done nothing to demonstrate how my taxes for health care will be greater than my current insurance and copays combined, outside of make the same sort of generic pro-Libertarianism maxims about government and the "ideals" of socialism. You've demonstrated absolutely nothing, including (to my severe disappointment, as I was hoping for some awesome enlightenment) how full privatization of health care would lead to the downfall of insurance companies. I'm still waiting to see that.
 
[quote name='dopa345']The police enforce government laws and the Constitution so they have to be a public institution.

You're obviously being facetious but privatizing fire departments is actually an intriguing idea; have homeowners and companies subscribe to fire protection just as they would for private security. If you choose not to and your house burns down, tough luck. A private organization would be more efficient to provide better services at a lower cost and it would free up public money for other use. Why couldn't it be privatized?[/quote]

Then we'd have people like Crassus from the First Triumvirate, hanging around burning houses offering to save it for high prices, or buy it for cheap when it's burned down.
 
[quote name='c0rnpwn']Then we'd have people like Crassus from the First Triumvirate, hanging around burning houses offering to save it for high prices, or buy it for cheap when it's burned down.[/QUOTE]

I was so waiting for this to be mentioned.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Not true. Police presence is something associated with reduced crime rates. It's a pretty basic James Q. Wilson premise: where there are beat cops, there is less crime/where there are less beat cops, there is more crime. [/quote]

It still doesn't prevent crime. It's called law enforcement, not personal protection. An associiation of bodies may serve as a deterrent, but won't guarantee you don't get mugged around the corner, or raped behind closed doors, or pickpocketed in a crowd. It also can't "protect" against unseen crime, like your local church treasurer embezzling 100k. The penalty of law iis the actual deterrent, unless you believe we are a nation of men and not laws.

Police are just ordinary citizens with special dispensation relegated to them by the people. They are not bodyguards. Their primary function is to investigate crime and prosecute offenders after a crime has been committed. Your personal protection is ultimately your own responsiibility, not anyone else's.


Again, those aren't Blackwater dudes in those kick-ass SUVs with gatling mounts on top. That's what I want in my neighborhood.
Click to expand...

If you're willing to pay for it, I'm sure your local jurisdiction could contract a private protection service, or a private investigation service. However, by contracting wiith the government, you become an agent of the public, de facto, and are subject to the scrutiny and laws of any other public agency, contractor, or service.

Look at it this way: municipalities negotiate and contract labor from the police union, a private company. How is this any different than contracting for labor services with any other company for law enforcement?

The old guy who rides around in a fake police cruiser writing tickets for handicapped parking has a contract to be paid for his services. It's no different than contracting wiith any other private individual or group.
 
[quote name='dopa345']The police enforce government laws and the Constitution so they have to be a public institution.

You're obviously being facetious but privatizing fire departments is actually an intriguing idea; have homeowners and companies subscribe to fire protection just as they would for private security. If you choose not to and your house burns down, tough luck. A private organization would be more efficient to provide better services at a lower cost and it would free up public money for other use. Why couldn't it be privatized?[/quote]

Simple. I was riding my bicycle through an interesting and a guy runs a red light and hits me. First responders, like in most incidents, is the fire department. What if a tanker carrying LNG spilled on the freeway. It's not the private FD's responsibility to clean it up. Let it burn.

GG.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It still doesn't prevent crime. It's called law enforcement, not personal protection. An associiation of bodies may serve as a deterrent, but won't guarantee you don't get mugged around the corner, or raped behind closed doors, or pickpocketed in a crowd. It also can't "protect" against unseen crime, like your local church treasurer embezzling 100k. The penalty of law iis the actual deterrent, unless you believe we are a nation of men and not laws.[/quote]

I haven't the slightest what you're trying to argue here. Define what you mean by "preventing crime." Personally, I'll stick with Felson's Routine Activites Theory of crime: For crime you need 3 things:
1) A motivated offender
2) A suitable target
3) An absence of capable guards

These do not translate to a guarantee that crime will not happen at all in areas where the conditions are not met, but that it will be less likely to occur. So considering a basic convenience store holdup, the store without a police cruiser in the parking lot is a more likely target than the one with the cruiser.

The store with no cameras is more likely to be a target than the one with.

It's fairly basic environmental criminology - the situation dictates crimes that are and are not likely to occur. So, a "prevented crime" certainly includes both those that were considered but not followed through based on an assessment of the situation, as well as those not even considered based on the poor likelihood of success (premised on the situation).

Consider the classic example of phone booth (remember those?) coinboxes. Originally made from aluminum, they were exceptionally easy to destroy and take the coins from for a quick and easy profit. Once the boxes were changed to be manufactured from steel, they were no longer easy to break into. Was crime prevented here? In my opinion, absolutely - the drop in the crime rate from phone booths reflects that - including unsuccessful attempts as well as those who found something else to do, having realized how difficult it was to break the new steel boxes.

Consider the relationship between conceal and carry laws and severe reductions in kidnapping/forcible rape rates (Dallas, TX being the largest example, if I recall). So crime went from happening to happening far less frequently, based on the assumption that the person you are thinking about abducting might have a gun and use it on you. Is crime prevented there? Absolutely; when you have a stable victimization rate from year to year that is significantly upset/diminished in correlation with a new law, then there's no other reasonable conclusion.
 
Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department:

CHEYENNE, WY—After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist," Jacobs said. "Also, my house was burning down." Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service.
Click to expand...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32825
 
Sorry to break from this great thread, but I couldn't help myself with these:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Also, a homeowner's association could demand fire protection insurance on homes in their area or collect them directly from the homeowners to lure better fire departments with large contracts.[/QUOTE]
There's no possible way on this Earth that you have lived in a homeowners' association. I'll take those schlubs at City Hall over power crazy stay at home moms and retirees any day. Talk about the pinnacle of fail in representative democracy.

Seriously.

[quote name='camoor']Apples and Bananas[/QUOTE]
Depends on how one feels about the "strict constuctionist" position, no?
 
So police never intervene when a crime is in progress? They only show up to investigate later? I could swear i've heard of police responding to hostage situations and ultimately saving someone's life.
 
I don't get what you're saying either bmulligan. Certainly the police aren't always around when a crime is committed and so a lot of what they do is after-the-fact, but that doesn't mean that their job isn't to protect people (it is "to serve and protect" after all, isn't it?). If there is a cop around while there is a crime in progress, they're not supposed to sit around and wait for it to finish and then do something, if they do they're considered bad cops, i.e., they're not doing their jobs.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Consider the relationship between conceal and carry laws and severe reductions in kidnapping/forcible rape rates (Dallas, TX being the largest example, if I recall). So crime went from happening to happening far less frequently, based on the assumption that the person you are thinking about abducting might have a gun and use it on you. Is crime prevented there? Absolutely; when you have a stable victimization rate from year to year that is significantly upset/diminished in correlation with a new law, then there's no other reasonable conclusion.[/quote]

We can also look at how the Brady Campaign recently scored all states on a 100 point system. Highest points means they have the "best" (most) Gun Control. There is an inverse relation between crime rates and points meaning that the safer the citizens were because gun laws "protected" them the higher the violent crimes rates were in that area. So if we get guns off the street we can encourage murder, rape, robbery and rape!
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You have a faulty premise, Myke. Police do not protect anyone from crime, and the fire department doesn't protect anyone from fire. They show up after a crime or fire has occurred, clean up the mess and investigate any foul play. Ultimately, YOU are the only one responsible for your own protection.
[/QUOTE]
Speeding, DUI, etc.?
 
[quote name='speedracer']There's no possible way on this Earth that you have lived in a homeowners' association. I'll take those schlubs at City Hall over power crazy stay at home moms and retirees any day. Talk about the pinnacle of fail in representative democracy.
[/quote]

I'd review a homeowners' charter and list of laws passed before buying property there.

If the neighborhood had a bunch of nutbars based that information OR wouldn't provide that information, I'd keep looking for a house.

It isn't that hard to find a house especially in this economy.
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']
Originally Posted by bmulligan View Post
You have a faulty premise, Myke. Police do not protect anyone from crime, and the fire department doesn't protect anyone from fire. They show up after a crime or fire has occurred, clean up the mess and investigate any foul play. Ultimately, YOU are the only one responsible for your own protection.
Click to expand...
Speeding, DUI, etc.?[/QUOTE]

The police don't prevent you from driving while intoxicated, they catch you AFTER you've already started swerving or killed someone. They don't prevent you from speeding, they are a witness to the 'crime' for legal purposes and issue citations AFTER the event. The presence of a police officer may be an indirect deterrent, but ultimately it's the penalty for a crime that prevents it from happening. Do you drive 5 miles over the speed limit on the highway? Sure - even when there are cops around. But would you drive 15 miles over the limit? 20? Shit no, that's a $200 ticket - whether there's a cop around or not, I don't do it.

AND, that speed trap cop doesn't have to be a police officer. He could be an 'independent contractor' just like the handicapped parking ticket guy. As long as he shows up in court as a witness to the crime - the judge is going to rule against you if there's sufficient evidence.

You people who think police exist to prevent crime have unknowingly slid down a slippery slope. Sure, we could hire one body for each person in the country and make sure everyone doesn't commit crimes, or hire more cameras as legal witnesses, or 'crime preventors'. But I'm sure most of you hold disdain for the Bush adiministration's policy's to do just that- saturation monitoring for crime prevention. It's also known by another name: a police state.

Remember that Ben Franklin pseudo quote ~ "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" ? Well, when you relinquish all responsibility to the government for your own personal protection, don't be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top