Restaurant Owner Tells 9-1-1 to Send Anyone But Police,

[Greoric]

This just shows that you don't get it.

That analogy couldn't possibly be worse.

1. You're trying to compare your ability to talk to one (very busy) person to a company that receives millions of calls a day, thus has a shitty call center set up in India.

A better comparison would be trying to call the mayor and the CEO of Amazon. Which one do you think you'd get a hold of first?

2. If you have an issue with your roads, there are town hall meetings where you can voice your opinion and in larger cities, lower tier officials are far easier to contact.

3. Again, your analogy falls flat because any rational person will tell you how miserable calling a phone or cable company can be.

Alright so lets get to the nitty gritty. Do you think your actions as a customer whether through your vocal complaints or through your wallet are as efficacious as calling your local representative for a solution?

 

[KILL KILL]

Alright so lets get to the nitty gritty. Do you think your actions as a customer whether through your vocal complaints or through your wallet are as efficacious as calling your local representative for a solution?

They're essentially the same thing. If the local representative wants to keep his job, he will listen.

What you seem not to realize it that there are various levels of government representative. At the local levels, you absolutely have a voice, whereas protests would fall on the deaf ears of big business unless the movement was large enough.

 

[Greoric]

They're essentially the same thing. If the local representative wants to keep his job, he will listen.

What you seem not to realize it that there are various levels of government representative. At the local levels, you absolutely have a voice, whereas protests would fall on the deaf ears of big business unless the movement was large enough.

Ok so let's follow that logic to it's conclusion. There should be no problem having every good or service produced by the government?

 

[Lee978]

How about the fact that it would be far more expensive for the business owners, would force them to provide protection for the people in the area that they don't do business, isn't logistically feasible, would leave our security in the hands of business owners that may not even live in our fucking country, and is completely ridiculous? How's that for starters?

Pretty awful actually.

You claim that it would be far more expensive for private entities to provide security and to back up your claim you mention how these private security firms would be forced to provide protection for non-customers, isn't logistically feasible, and because foreigners might be the producers of these domestic security services. None of these objections hold any weight though. Maybe it's your lack of imagination or maybe you just don't understand how powerful the market is but there is no reason why in principle firms would have to service non-customers and there is no inherent reason why providing security services needs to be a logistical nightmare (you give no reasons why this MUST be the case). Your last objection is just silly once one realizes that we import all types of goods like food for example that can be argued are just as important as security.

If we create a model of the US but assume that no police exists then I think it is safe to assume that there will exist a high demand for protection and security services. Entrepreneurs being what they are would probably step in to fill this void (profit motive). Now the protection and security services they provide would more than likely look nothing like what the current police provides. Furthermore, depending on the area (rural, suburban, urban), the demand for security and protection would differ dramatically. Maybe in the richer pockets of the US minimal security is required and conversely, in the poorer pockets of the US more security is required. I don't see why this would ipso facto create a logistical nightmare for security firms or why if security firm A provides security services for X why must he also provide it for Y if Y isn't a customer.

To reiterate, a society with completely private security services would more than likely look nothing like the current state of affairs. You wouldn't have a monopoly providing services for millions of individuals but more like hundreds if not thousands of firms providing security services to millions of individuals. These firms need not coordinate with each other for this to work either (though there probably would exist a strong incentive to do so). For example just look at what security companies like ADT do today. That is just one aspect of security but they compete with other firms without any logistical problems or without providing security to non-customers. Moreover, because monopolies are by definition inefficient and wasteful, individuals would probably get much better security for less than what it costs them today.

 

[Greoric]

Pretty awful actually.

You claim that it would be far more expensive for private entities to provide security and to back up your claim you mention how these private security firms would be forced to provide protection for non-customers, isn't logistically feasible, and because foreigners might be the producers of these domestic security services. None of these objections hold any weight though. Maybe it's your lack of imagination or maybe you just don't understand how powerful the market is but there is no reason why in principle firms would have to service non-customers and there is no inherent reason why providing security services needs to be a logistical nightmare (you give no reasons why this MUST be the case). Your last objection is just silly once one realizes that we import all types of goods like food for example that can be argued are just as important as security.

If we create a model of the US but assume that no police exists then I think it is safe to assume that there will exist a high demand for protection and security services. Entrepreneurs being what they are would probably step in to fill this void (profit motive). Now the protection and security services they provide would more than likely look nothing like what the current police provides. Furthermore, depending on the area (rural, suburban, urban), the demand for security and protection would differ dramatically. Maybe in the richer pockets of the US minimal security is required and conversely, in the poorer pockets of the US more security is required. I don't see why this would ipso facto create a logistical nightmare for security firms or why if security firm A provides security services for X why must he also provide it for Y if Y isn't a customer.

To reiterate, a society with completely private security services would more than likely look nothing like the current state of affairs. You wouldn't have a monopoly providing services for millions of individuals but more like hundreds if not thousands of firms providing security services to millions of individuals. These firms need not coordinate with each other for this to work either (though there probably would exist a strong incentive to do so). For example just look at what security companies like ADT do today. That is just one aspect of security but they compete with other firms without any logistical problems or without providing security to non-customers. Moreover, because monopolies are by definition inefficient and wasteful, individuals would probably get much better security for less than what it costs them today.

Great post, and to defend Kill a bit, it is a tough transition to make imaging it without having an intimate understanding about what the incentives are in a market economy. I remember being adamant about never having anarchy, even while I was a minarchist, and that even took me a while to transition. Kill is much further in the other direction than I was to begin with.

 

[Lee978]

They're essentially the same thing. If the local representative wants to keep his job, he will listen.

That is only true if you have at least a small group of individuals who feel the same way you do. Otherwise your lone voice will mean nothing.

What you seem not to realize it that there are various levels of government representative. At the local levels, you absolutely have a voice, whereas protests would fall on the deaf ears of big business unless the movement was large enough.

Again this is only true if there are enough individuals who feel as passionate and strongly about the matter as you do. Otherwise your vote means nothing.

I would google Public Choice Theory. Very informative on this topic.

 

[Was Exiled]

He's painting a giant bullseye on his business for robbers looking for an easy score.

One can hope.

 

[ultramanhyata]

This just shows that you don't get it.

That analogy couldn't possibly be worse.

1. You're trying to compare your ability to talk to one (very busy) person to a company that receives millions of calls a day, thus has a shitty call center set up in India.

A better comparison would be trying to call the mayor and the CEO of Amazon. Which one do you think you'd get a hold of first?

2. If you have an issue with your roads, there are town hall meetings where you can voice your opinion and in larger cities, lower tier officials are far easier to contact.

3. Again, your analogy falls flat because any rational person will tell you how miserable calling a phone or cable company can be.

Even more delusional is the idea that if I, as a customer, have a bad experience with a business my refusing to patronize that business in the future is going to "send a message". It doesn't send any more of a message than my angry letter to my senator, threatening to withhold my vote in the next election.

The only individual consumers or citizens who have any meaningful influence in either scenario are the rich. So if I am a wealthy vendor to a business, and I don't like something the business is doing, I will have significant sway. Likewise if I am a wealthy donor to a senator's campaign she is going to personally get back to me, ASAP, concerning my concerns, because the consequences of not doing so are too great.

In both the public and private spheres of a democracy the rich, strictly by virtue of their wealth, have more power and influence than the non-rich. This is why there is a direct correlation between the level of income inequality and the level of tyranny and loss of personal liberty in a society.

 

[Lee978]

Even more delusional is the idea that if I, as a customer, have a bad experience with a business my refusing to patronize that business in the future is going to "send a message". It doesn't send any more of a message than my angry letter to my senator, threatening to withhold my vote in the next election.

The only individual consumers or citizens who have any meaningful influence in either scenario are the rich. So if I am a wealthy vendor to a business, and I don't like something the business is doing, I will have significant sway. Likewise if I am a wealthy donor to a senator's campaign she is going to personally get back to me, ASAP, concerning my concerns, because the consequences of not doing so are too great.

In both the public and private spheres of a democracy the rich, strictly by virtue of their wealth, have more power and influence than the non-rich. This is why there is a direct correlation between the level of income inequality and the level of tyranny and loss of personal liberty in a society.

Apple is the largest company in the world by market cap and when they decided to put U2 on everyones iTunes they had pretty big backlash from their customers. From what I remember they didn't ignore their customers but in fact took pretty swift action and promised never to do something like that again.

Maybe one person can't make an impact in either sphere but voting with one's dollars go a hell of a lot further than voting at the ballot box.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

The Problems of Private Policing: Penn, Philadelphia, and Beyond

From the article:

The...most obvious issue with private security forces is that they are disconnected from their broader communities. Hired to protect a subgroup of a neighborhood, private security forces are less inclined to feel responsible for those who do not contribute to their salaries. Moreover, a reliance on private security forces only increases the already grossly apparent income disparity between wealthy enclaves and the larger communities of which they are a part, which only results in higher crime rates. The repercussions of a disconnected and disengaged police force are particularly pernicious for an inner city struggling with violent crime. Effective policing is contingent upon strong and durable relations between officers and city residents. Citizens who are convinced that the officer on the street corner is there to protect them * – not simply those who are paying his paycheck – are much more likely to trust and cooperate with police. When citizens are convinced that the cop with the gun and the baton is an ally, not an enemy, they are much more likely to turn to him or her when they witness a crime being committed. Comparatively, when it’s perceived that the cop is there simply to protect a paying customer – that he has no commitment to anybody else – city residents lose faith in an institution committed to keeping them safe.

...private security forces are rarely held accountable for their actions. Lacking the same regulatory provisions, community review boards, and requirement for Miranda rights as public police forces, private security forces may infringe upon the rights of the public. Even though city residents often allege that private security forces, including Allied Barton, infringe upon their rights and engage in misconduct, there is no standard procedure by which the government can oversee private security forces and hold them accountable for their transgressions. The most flagrant examples of misconduct include the continuous mishandling of rape and sexual assault allegations at universities across the country. It’s hard to win over a community and prove to them that you have a legitimate claim to the use of force when you don’t play by the same rules as public law enforcement. An unaccountable police force is also an ineffective one, as community support, trust, and respect are essential to efficacious law enforcement.

 

[KILL KILL]

That is only true if you have at least a small group of individuals who feel the same way you do. Otherwise your lone voice will mean nothing.




Again this is only true if there are enough individuals who feel as passionate and strongly about the matter as you do. Otherwise your vote means nothing.

I would google Public Choice Theory. Very informative on this topic.

That's the same thing for big business. Wal Mart doesn't give a shit about the individual plight of a person. Their own employees can't even get fair wages.

 

[Lee978]

That's the same thing for big business. Wal Mart doesn't give a shit about the individual plight of a person. Their own employees can't even get fair wages.

I agree. However, if some time in the future 60% of Wal-Mart's customers decided to boycott Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart would eventually go out of business or at the very least shrink in size dramatically. If 60% of the society was unhappy about a certain policy or legislation there is no guarantee that our elected officials will do anything about it. This is due to the collective action problem among other things. So again, I believe voting with one's dollars is much more effective than voting at the ballot box.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Apple is the largest company in the world by market cap and when they decided to put U2 on everyones iTunes they had pretty big backlash from their customers. From what I remember they didn't ignore their customers but in fact took pretty swift action and promised never to do something like that again.

Maybe one person can't make an impact in either sphere but voting with one's dollars go a hell of a lot further than voting at the ballot box.

Oh yeah... I'm sure tens of thousands of people writing their senator, all complaining about the same piece of legislation, wouldn't carry any weight.

This is the problem - one very rich individual is given a voice equal to thousands of non-rich individuals by both our private and public sectors.

 

[Lee978]

Oh yeah... I'm sure tens of thousands of people writing their senator, all complaining about the same piece of legislation, wouldn't carry any weight.

It might or it might not, there is no guarantee as is the case with a businesses. There are thousands of people unhappy with the income inequality in this country yet nothing ever gets done about it, why? Thousands (if not millions) of individuals would benefit by something being done yet all we get is angry people on sherdog talking about how every rich person is evil.

 

[Greoric]

Even more delusional is the idea that if I, as a customer, have a bad experience with a business my refusing to patronize that business in the future is going to "send a message". It doesn't send any more of a message than my angry letter to my senator, threatening to withhold my vote in the next election. .

Right so this is calling into question what the difference is between the democracy of the dollar and the democracy of the vote. One depends on coercion and the vote of a majority.

If the message to a business is in any meaningful way able to be corrected, they'll respond. Why? Because they want more money. So in this fashion a minority vote with the customer has an infinitely greater effect than the minority vote of the constituent. The political representative has to only care enough to get the majority vote.

Further, to gather more votes in a democracy the politician can promise more handouts and privileges to one demographic at the expense of another. Business has no such influence of the kind.

The only individual consumers or citizens who have any meaningful influence in either scenario are the rich. So if I am a wealthy vendor to a business, and I don't like something the business is doing, I will have significant sway. .

As a wealthy person are you going to pay more than the vendor is asking for his product? Have you ever heard anyone at any income level go to checkout counter and say "I really like these Harbio gummy bears. I'll pay $5 for them instead of $1."?

If someone does, that's an act of charity, which just lessens government's need further.

Likewise if I am a wealthy donor to a senator's campaign she is going to personally get back to me, ASAP, concerning my concerns, because the consequences of not doing so are too great. .

Right because the senator will be in the position of coercing others to do what you're paying him for. Businesses don't have that luxury. People are either going to buy a businesses product or not.

In both the public and private spheres of a democracy the rich, strictly by virtue of their wealth, have more power and influence than the non-rich. This is why there is a direct correlation between the level of income inequality and the level of tyranny and loss of personal liberty in a society.

Both of which the inequality, as well as the loss of liberty, are manifested by governments via inflationist monetary policy for the former and legislation for the latter.

 

[Lee978]

The Problems of Private Policing: Penn, Philadelphia, and Beyond

From the article:

The...most obvious issue with private security forces is that they are disconnected from their broader communities.

And this isn't an issue with public police forces? Wasn't this a major factor in what happened just recently in Ferguson?

Hired to protect a subgroup of a neighborhood, private security forces are less inclined to feel responsible for those who do not contribute to their salaries.

Again, public police officers don't seem to me to be immune from this problem and in their case everyone contributes to their salaries.

Moreover, a reliance on private security forces only increases the already grossly apparent income disparity between wealthy enclaves and the larger communities of which they are a part, which only results in higher crime rates. The repercussions of a disconnected and disengaged police force are particularly pernicious for an inner city struggling with violent crime. Effective policing is contingent upon strong and durable relations between officers and city residents. Citizens who are convinced that the officer on the street corner is there to protect them *

 

[nhbbear]

I guess I don't understand your question. The police aren't allowed in any private residence without probable cause, as in a specific articulable suspicion of criminal activity.

The guy has the right not to allow police into his place of business if he wants, just as you do if the police come knocking at your door without a warrant.

"Hello 911, I think I have a guy dying in my restroom of a heroin overdose" will pass the reasonable, articulable suspicion test every time. The police can choose to honor a request, as they did in this instance, or they have the right to go in.

He has every right to deny police the pleasure of dining at his fine establishment, as police are not a protected class of citizens. But he does not have the right to determine who responds to an emergency.

 

[oldshadow]

"Hello 911, I think I have a guy dying in my restroom of a heroin overdose" will pass the reasonable, articulable suspicion test every time. The police can choose to honor a request, as they did in this instance, or they have the right to go in.

He has every right to deny police the pleasure of dining at his fine establishment, as police are not a protected class of citizens. But he does not have the right to determine who responds to an emergency.

And I would bet he would be at the door screaming