Paul Birch

In fact I would favour a policy that some might call "privatising" the police. It is dangerous to have the police employed by the state - it makes it all too easy to create a police state. We are seeing this happen today, with the police gradually obtaining special powers and privileges and immunity from the law. In a free society it is crucially important that the police be fully subject to the rule of law. It is also important that there should be a variety of police services, not a single centrally controlled force.

I discuss suitable legislation here

mkpdavies

A bit like OCP in Robocop, you wouldn't want a big company running it all, as you said, as they would be just as bad as big government.

For me the police is one thing government should control, solely because I would rather a publicly elected government run such a society based function, rather than a company looking to please it's shareholders.

Of course you have to make sure the government isn't corrupt and doesn't abuse the police, who are supposed to be there to benefit society, not abuse it!

I will go and have a read of your stuff though, as to be honest, I have never given it much thought before.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Paul Birch

Which is precisely what you can't do, so long as they control the police!

mkpdavies

I'm not sure companies owning them would make things better though. Indeed, what happens if Nike owns one force, Adidas owns another and they merge? In the end you could end up with one big corporate power running the lot, which would be just as bad as a corrupt government. At least government are supposed to serve the public, rather than being profit driven.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Paul Birch

Better read the Libertarian Underground thread first, so we're not debating at cross purposes. However, even "one big corporate power" in charge of a police force would not be anything like as bad as a corrupt government because (a) they would still be subject to the courts of the realm, which would ensure that they operated according to the law (unless the courts were corrupt too - and to a considerable extent probably even if they were corrupt, since they would then tend to treat the police corporation as a rival), and (b) if the existing police forces proved unsatisfactory, new competing police forces would be started and attract the public's complaints (ie custom) away from the old ones. The usual benefits of free market competition. Also, in a free market the only way to make a profit is to serve the public; by contrast, governments generally serve the partisan interests of those with political power.

gareth2

You'l have to put up with me if i have to put up with arrogant scientists talking like they rule the world already, and that everyone else just needs to think a bit more like them. The danger in libertarianism as you have presented it which is what i refered to above, is it is as nyork posted, it is destructive and rides roughshod over others, all with its own brand of intelectual grease to slide it in place.

Youve obviously spent your whole life learning to be smart and how to argue scientifically, but that doesnt make you right, so much as it makes you unpleasant.

And less of the racist bob, your starting to make me weep.

Regards,
Gareth.

John Carter

So who's going to arrest the members of the "big bad corporate power" - to get them INTO phpbb_court in the first place - when they become too corrupt? The police force that they own?

I thought you were a scientist Paul. If GM crops (British farming thread) have been thought through by other scientists as well as this last post was by you, then we're heading for a nightmare scenario.

Benjaminw1

Why do you have to use abuse when addressing the arguments?

Ben

Paul Birch

I'm getting fed up of the way you keep quoting me out of context, cutting off the crucial qualifications and explanations; the previous sentence read "Better read the Libertarian Underground thread first, so we're not debating at cross purposes". That's where you'll find the details. There's far too much material for me simply to cross-post it INTO phpbb_this thread here.

I also added "and (b) if the existing police forces proved unsatisfactory, new competing police forces would be started and attract the public's complaints (ie custom) away from the old ones", which ought to have indicated the basis of the answer to your sneering question.

First, please note that I am not promoting a big corporate police force, but rather, many competing police trusts and a lot of small police partnerships; under my proposed legislation a police monopoly would be highly unlikely. I merely argued that even if we got such a force it would be less bad than a police state, where there is no recourse from corrupt policing.

Second, a police force would only be profitable if it were able to win its cases in court, because it is the court that pays it, on successful prosecutions. That court will demand sound evidence.

Third, anyone wronged in any way by any police (or any company) could bring suit for damages against them in court; a corrupt police force would face heavy and frequent fines and become unprofitable. It is not necessary to arrest anyone to bring suit against them, but if it did prove necessary for whatever reason, another police force, or any individual policemen, could carry out the arrests.

Paul Birch

There were no arguments, merely a catalogue of lies and distortions. I retaliated against the abusiveness of the opening attack. I make no apologies for so doing. The BNP are scum. In this country only libertarians have consistently defended their right to exist; challenging the way they have been persecuted; objecting to the way their bank accounts have been terminated as a means of denying them the right to stand as a political party; insisting that they should be at liberty to promote their racial, cultural and nationalistic views; rejecting the politically correct repression of the freedom of the individual to despise, hate, or refuse to associate with those he disapproves of or dislikes for whatever reason, irrational prejudice or subjective preference. Yet all we get from them in return are lies and abuse.