Law enforcement is most obese profession - study

[My Spot]

They need to stop no-knock raids over suspected drug possession. Some cops in GA threw a damn flash bang in a baby's crib last year.

 

[gatchaman]

Or they just despise people abusing their authority. It's not anything new with the advent of cell phone cameras, but the rate that it happens is approaching a crescendo for the public very quickly.

The best thing that could ever happen to the LEO community would be privatization. Not only would the shitbird LEOs get selected out, but the ones that are able to stay in that job would be paid much better.

Hello Greoric, we have discussed the pay of private police before. I don't think you can guarantee that private workers will inevitably be paid more than public workers, such as in the case of transit drivers. I'm pretty sure that I have read on the von Mises site that the more essential the service, the more likely the public worker is to be overpaid. The reasoning is there is less risk to a politician's re-election chances in raising the taxes a penny (or borrowing more) to cover the increased pay to transit workers, teachers, or doctors than there is in losing, even momentarily, an essential service to strike. The politician isn't planning on being around long enough to face the long term economic consequences of overpaying public employees anyway.

Also, do you consider the American public to be more abused or less abused by increased privatization of prisons?

 

[7437]

They need to stop no-knock raids over suspected drug possession. Some cops in GA threw a damn flash bang in a baby's crib last year.

That baby shouldnt have been dealing drugs then.

 

[cleetus]

I provided a source that suggests otherwise. We're only debating between 20k and 80K because of faulty record keeping among PDs. The number is pretty irrelevant to the case that they're happening at an increasing rate for non violent offenses in a preceding climate of decreasing crime. That's a problem on top of other problems.

And yes, PDs get federal grants for every drug arrest they get as well as free equipment from the DHS.... another problem.

And now you've gone full retard.

 

[Greoric]

And now you've gone full retard.

Great post!

 

[Greoric]

Hello Greoric, we have discussed the pay of private police before. I don't think you can guarantee that private workers will inevitably be paid more than public workers, such as in the case of transit drivers. I'm pretty sure that I have read on the von Mises site that the more essential the service, the more likely the public worker is to be overpaid. The reasoning is there is less risk to a politician's re-election chances in raising the taxes a penny (or borrowing more) to cover the increased pay to transit workers, teachers, or doctors than there is in losing, even momentarily, an essential service to strike. The politician isn't planning on being around long enough to face the long term economic consequences of overpaying public employees anyway.

Also, do you consider the American public to be more abused or less abused by increased privatization of prisons?

That's fair. After all I'm only able to speculate what their market wage would be. I anticipate that it would be a fairly high wage though considering the liability and selective pressure they would be exposed to which they aren't already. Additionally its a complex job that requires them to wear many hats, and sometimes change hats frequently.

 

[gatchaman]

That's fair. After all I'm only able to speculate what their market wage would be. I anticipate that it would be a fairly high wage though considering the liability and selective pressure they would be exposed to which they aren't already. Additionally its a complex job that requires them to wear many hats, and sometimes change hats frequently.

Thank you for the discussion.

I don't know if you missed it, but I also asked you a question:
Do you consider the American people to be more abused or less abused by increased privatization of prisons?

 

[Greoric]

Thank you for the discussion.

I don't know if you missed it, but I also asked you a question:
Do you consider the American people to be more abused or less abused by increased privatization of prisons?

Apologies. Yeah I did miss that. The answer is that it looks to me like they're an abomination, but consider who funds them.... the government. We don't choose to fund them.

That's the whole point behind privatization. Letting people decide individually if a service is worth the resources they're willing to pay for it. That's not an option with the prison system or PDs nationwide.

So sure we can call the prison system privatized, but we're not able to see any of the benefits of that privatization because they're still being compulsory funded.

 

[gatchaman]

Apologies. Yeah I did miss that. The answer is that it looks to me like they're an abomination, but consider who funds them.... the government. We don't choose to fund them.

That's the whole point behind privatization. Letting people decide individually if a service is worth the resources they're willing to pay for it. That's not an option with the prison system or PDs nationwide.

So sure we can call the prison system privatized, but we're not able to see any of the benefits of that privatization because they're still being compulsory funded.

If understand correctly, you are advocating for a police department that is privately funded. Would you provide a present-day or historical example of such a police department? Is the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency a historical example of such a police department?

 

[Greoric]

If understand correctly, you are advocating for a police department that is privately funded. Would you provide a present-day or historical example of such a police department? Is the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency a historical example of such a police department?

Never read about the Baldwin Felts Agency. I'll check in on it though.

Keep in mind, the specificity of the law enforcement sector isn't the argument here necessarily. I'm only able to speculate how that market would function.

With that said, the query you mentioned isn't evidence of anything besides government's not wanting that service to be provided noncoercively. They're giving up far to much control if they don't have a monopoly over that service. The powers that be simply won't allow that to happen.

The point is showing the greater control we all would have to keep LEOs and their departments accountable. That all happens via market pressure. Something that's completely absent now.

Just run down the gauntlet of major issues.... Tens of thousands of no-knock raids a year. Flagrant abuse, where LEOs are not held to the same liability standard as others. More money being stolen from people through civil asset forfeitures than thieves.

If you found out a service you were paying security and LE for in your area was doing a fraction of these activities, would you continue to pay for it? No? Then you have the answer to why privatization works better than the coercive alternative. The only argument really left over is condemning its operation by applying the god of the gaps, or allowing the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[FeloniousMonk]

Fat pigs, imo

 

[gatchaman]

Never read about the Baldwin Felts Agency. I'll check in on it though.

Keep in mind, the specificity of the law enforcement sector isn't the argument here necessarily. I'm only able to speculate how that market would function.

With that said, the query you mentioned isn't evidence of anything besides government's not wanting that service to be provided noncoercively. They're giving up far to much control if they don't have a monopoly over that service. The powers that be simply won't allow that to happen.

The point is showing the greater control we all would have to keep LEOs and their departments accountable. That all happens via market pressure. Something that's completely absent now.

Just run down the gauntlet of major issues.... Tens of thousands of no-knock raids a year. Flagrant abuse, where LEOs are not held to the same liability standard as others. More money being stolen from people through civil asset forfeitures than thieves.

If you found out a service you were paying security and LE for in your area was doing a fraction of these activities, would you continue to pay for it? No? Then you have the answer to why privatization works better than the coercive alternative. The only argument really left over is condemning its operation by applying the god of the gaps, or allowing the perfect be the enemy of the good.

We have already established in discussion of private police pay that speculation can lead to different conclusions. Utopianism is a flaw of these speculations, and if you do not see it in discussions of anarchocapitalism or voluntarism, perhaps you have recognized it in Zeitgeist resourced based economy proponents.

In the time you have typed your response, you could have read the wikipedia entry on the Baldwin-Felts Agency, but I will give you a teaser to get you started. The agency was hired by coal mine companies to evict strikers from coal mine company-owned land, among other things, during the American coal wars. I think it is a fascinating case study in property rights and private policing, but I am also open to discuss other examples if you have any. My question again:
Is the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency a historical example of privately-funded police?

I am still open to discuss in the realm of speculation. In such a case, my question is:
Are privately funded goods and services always delivered more efficiently than publicly funded ones?

Thanks again for the conversation.

 

[Greoric]

We have already established in discussion of private police pay that speculation can lead to different conclusions. Utopianism is a flaw of these speculations, and if you do not see it in discussions of anarchocapitalism or voluntarism, perhaps you have recognized it in Zeitgeist resourced based economy proponents.

In the time you have typed your response, you could have read the wikipedia entry on the Baldwin-Felts Agency, but I will give you a teaser to get you started. The agency was hired by coal mine companies to evict strikers from coal mine company-owned land, among other things, during the American coal wars. I think it is a fascinating case study in property rights and private policing, but I am also open to discuss other examples if you have any. My question again:
Is the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency a historical example of privately-funded police?

I am still open to discuss in the realm of speculation. In such a case, my question is:
Are privately funded goods and services always delivered more efficiently than publicly funded ones?

Thanks again for the conversation.

What utopianism are you referring to? The fact that cooperative associations work better than coercive ones? That's hardly an argument based around a utopian idea. That's just a reality, and that part has nothing to do with speculation. Outside a well controlled experiment that's a well defined truth. So yes, free markets will operate more efficiently than markets with a coercive monopoly. Even if we leave aside the incentive argument completely, it simply comes down to a discrepancy of information flow that government's aren't privy too via pricing.

In any event, I read a little up on the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency, and it reads like they did a lot of good work;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin–Felts_Detective_Agency

The agency became known for crime-busting after it successfully tracked down members of the Allen family wanted in a shootout in 1912 at the Carroll County Courthouse in Hillsville, Virginia, that left the judge, the sheriff, the prosecutor, a juror and a witness dead or dying.

As far as their supplemental ventures with the mine strikers, the owners don't have the right to evict people they don't want on their property? sure, the miners had every right to strike, but they didn't have any right to strike on the owners property wouldn't you agree?

For a more modern example, Detroit provides a good example for the private security/LE sector. Even here we see private firms are more efficient, because they're filling a void government is not able to anymore...

http://tdvmedia.com/getblog.php?id=217&ac=83GY0Z1T

 

[gatchaman]

What utopianism are you referring to? The fact that cooperative associations work better than coercive ones? That's hardly an argument based around a utopian idea. That's just a reality, and that part has nothing to do with speculation. Outside a well controlled experiment that's a well defined truth. So yes, free markets will operate more efficiently than markets with a coercive monopoly. Even if we leave aside the incentive argument completely, it simply comes down to a discrepancy of information flow that government's aren't privy too via pricing.

In any event, I read a little up on the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency, and it reads like they did a lot of good work;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin–Felts_Detective_Agency


As far as their supplemental ventures with the mine strikers, the owners don't have the right to evict people they don't want on their property? sure, the miners had every right to strike, but they didn't have any right to strike on the owners property wouldn't you agree?

For a more modern example, Detroit provides a good example for the private security/LE sector. Even here we see private firms are more efficient, because they're filling a void government is not able to anymore...

http://tdvmedia.com/getblog.php?id=217&ac=83GY0Z1T

I speaking of the utopianism of a coercion-free world. A coercion-free world is not going to happen. Are animals better off when they are owned?

Is the service of coercion itself provided more efficiently in a free market than in markets with a coercive monopoly?

I agree that a property owner should be able to evict a trespasser. At the same time, I would like to see such evictions be done with a minimum of harm inflicted. If a yacht owner invites a guest onto his yacht, he may subsequently ask the guest to leave, but I consider it bad form to insist on an immediate departure in the middle of the ocean.

From your earlier post:
Just run down the gauntlet of major issues.... Tens of thousands of no-knock raids a year. Flagrant abuse, where LEOs are not held to the same liability standard as others. More money being stolen from people through civil asset forfeitures than thieves.

By comparison, the coal wars, with the private police Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency, were the second biggest blood-letting of non-native Americans in America since the Civil War. Why is the work of the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency good compared to modern LEOs? Why are no-knock machine gun attacks on striker camp sites good work compared to tens of thousands of no-knock raids with rare deaths?

 

[Greoric]

I speaking of the utopianism of a coercion-free world. A coercion-free world is not going to happen. Are animals better off when they are owned?

Is the service of coercion itself provided more efficiently in a free market than in markets with a coercive monopoly?

I agree that a property owner should be able to evict a trespasser. At the same time, I would like to see such evictions be done with a minimum of harm inflicted. If a yacht owner invites a guest onto his yacht, he may subsequently ask the guest to leave, but I consider it bad form to insist on an immediate departure in the middle of the ocean.

From your earlier post:
Just run down the gauntlet of major issues.... Tens of thousands of no-knock raids a year. Flagrant abuse, where LEOs are not held to the same liability standard as others. More money being stolen from people through civil asset forfeitures than thieves.

By comparison, the coal wars, with the private police Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency, were the second biggest blood-letting of non-native Americans in America behind the Civil War. Why is the work of the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency good compared to modern LEOs? Why are no-knock machine gun attacks on striker camp sites good work compared to tens of thousands of no-knock raids with rare deaths?

Well, a coercion-free world is certainly the goal, wouldn't you agree? While that's the end objective for us as a species, the first goal is to cease the legitimacy of coercion, i.e. government. That brings me to the underlying moral issue. As you can see most people on here, including you it seems, still favor using threats of aggressive violence to accomplish goals.

You're still under the assumption that coercive associations are favorable to cooperative ones. Why is that?

Your question concerning the efficiency of coercion in the market place via a coercive monopoly was a beautiful one, and I hope that it'll be an epiphany for you. The answer is no, and if we're to make any arbitrary distinction between the coercive monopoly and government they both fail for the same reasons. Monopolies, even exclusively cooperative ones, can't exist in markets for precisely the same reason that make governments so inefficient. Again, a lack of information flow via prices.

Finally, consider your comparison of the violence caused by governments and conflicts among individuals. I think you'll find with some honest inquiry that the former is the much more significant perpetrator by orders of magnitude. The difference? Governments are given legitimacy to form a monopoly to carry out aggressive violence only by people like yourself. As a point of contact for you, look up the number of people that were killed by democide in the 20th century. Its ironic, but the one saving grace for humanity is that governments are so inefficient with everything.

 

[gatchaman]

Well, a coercion-free world is certainly the goal, wouldn't you agree? While that's the end objective for us as a species, the first goal is to cease the legitimacy of coercion, i.e. government. That brings me to the underlying moral issue. As you can see most people on here, including you it seems, still favor using threats of aggressive violence to accomplish goals.

You're still under the assumption that coercive associations are favorable to cooperative ones. Why is that?

Your question concerning the efficiency of coercion in the market place via a coercive monopoly was a beautiful one, and I hope that it'll be an epiphany for you. The answer is no, and if we're to make any arbitrary distinction between the coercive monopoly and government they both fail for the same reasons. Monopolies, even exclusively cooperative ones, can't exist in markets for precisely the same reason that make governments so inefficient. Again, a lack of information flow via prices.

Finally, consider your comparison of the violence caused by governments and conflicts among individuals. I think you'll find with some honest inquiry that the former is the much more significant perpetrator by orders of magnitude. The difference? Governments are given legitimacy to form a monopoly to carry out aggressive violence only by people like yourself. As a point of contact for you, look up the number of people that were killed by democide in the 20th century. Its ironic, but the one saving grace for humanity is that governments are so inefficient with everything.

Sorry for not responding sooner, but sometimes I like to think things over. It doesn't necessarily mean that this reply will be better than a quicker one.

I don't know if I agree with the goal of a coercion-free world. A while back, I had to take my daughter to get her wound dressing changed at the hospital. On the way to the car, she decided that she would rather pick dandelions than go to her appointment. In the future, I can allow more time for distractions. When she acquires more language, I can explain the importance of things to her long-term welfare. But in that narrow time window I was working with, I decided to coercively lift her away from her dandelion picking and confine her into a car seat. I skipped the threat, and went right for the aggressive lifting and strapping in, overcoming her weak attempts at resistance. How would this situation be handled in a coercion-free world?

I have read on the von Mises website an argument that it is better for the welfare of endangered animals to be owned by humans because the owners have an incentive to protect the animals from poachers. Do you agree with this argument?