What do we have currently: police is payed through our taxes, then the elected officials act as if they are paying the police themselves and decide to issue stand down or withdraw orders or even abandon orders at a whim. We end up with tax paying citizens harassed, businesses burned and looted.
Here is my idea, why not have police as a membership, you move in and you pay directly to the police as a member. That way you are completely in control, if they decide to not protect you, well then they do not get funded. We do not have to worry about some sleazy politician defunding them, or calling for orders that we do not support. There are issues with this idea of course, please add suggestions to solve them. Issues are
- Families not having enough income to pay, (perhaps some kind of a charity?)
- Some people not wanting to pay? (not sure how to solve that, but still better than what we have now).
So what do you guys think?
I think a certain set of Sicilian immigrants had an idea like this a while back. You move in and a local organization comes in and tells you that if you don't want criminals to mess up your store, you have to pay them and they'll "protect" you.
Deunionized.
Well that too. I do not see how unions will try negotiating with paying customers, unions would be useless.
Sounds interesting but didn't we have rival fire departments in New York that just kicked the crap out of each other and watch buildings burn?
I think Ive seen this in Gangs of NY, not sure how true that is, but what we have right now is commies running around burning and looting everything, without cops doing anything.
Yeah it was in that movie but it does seem to have at least a hint of truth to it. No doubt I agree that cops should be doing there job but I do have some concerns that privately operated security could devolve into a mafia style protection racket.
My view is that we need to deunionize the police and then create government accountability district attorneys that are rewarded for taking down bad police, bad prosecutors and bad judges as well as any other government employees. These government accountability district attorneys should be completely separate from any local government.
Dont add more government, the reason for what we see right now, is due to the insane overgrowth of the gvt. When gvt. grows it creates more levers of power which equals to more possibilities of corruption, that is why we see so much endless fight for the power. We must reduce gvt. never increase the cancer!
Institute the least government you can. The power you are talking about is more or less federal increases in power. I argue we need to set government agencies against one another rather than making them incestuous coruptocracies. Police are, for the most part, a state and local entity. In order for law and order we must have Laws, enforcement, prosecutorial and judicial entities. These agencies should not however be allowed to maintain incestuous relationships. Unfortunately, how do you get these last 3 entities to be incentivized to reign in the others? Judges and Prosecutors are dependent upon each other. Prosecutors and police are dependent on each other. Courts and police are dependent on each other. But they are all required to have a law and order society. So, I laid out my idea on how to hold them accountable, can you tell me yours?
When you have them as private entities instead of governmental, they are fully responsive to the customers. Any small local company that does not do what their customers agreed on contractually in the first place, loses funding outright. Police that I am proposing is local as it is, not national, meaning that every little district pays directly to the police. The only difference between now and what I am proposing is that now you have your money taken from you in order to pay the police, therefore you are no longer in charge as you do not have the option to not pay. In my proposal, you pay directly, therefore you are truly in charge.
How is facebook, twitter, google going for us as private entities? Who do you think will ultimately fund the police, the 80% of the population that currently pays about 8% of the cost of government or the 20% who fund 92% of government?
The issue with Facebook and Google, is that everyone for over 6 years now, has been relying on the government to fix it, instead of switching to the alternatives.
As far as government and 8%, do you honestly think that the monstrosity of the government we have right now is just the right size? It was never meant to be this crushingly huge. If you reduce taxes to people, they will take this reduced amount to pay for the local police.
Facebook, google and twitter get to use government protection racket to maintain monopolies. Any time a competitor gets big enough to challenge them they sue them into oblivion and then give them an out with a buyout offer. The federal government is WAY too big. My version of what a balanced budget amendment would look like would be that the federal government could not spend any more than twice the amount of money that is put into defending the nation, 1/2 of spending is in national defense. In times of war, the the cost of the war efforts do not count towards general national defense.
You could do it like an insurance company. It would still be 100% private, of course, but you would be charged by your propensity of committing crimes. Get some actuaries and underwriters in on this. That way they get the best training, pay, and equipment, hiring is competitive, and there is competition on the market.
The only problem is putting in a claim every time a crime is committed against you--then there would be additional overhead in figuring out which one of the many competitive "police departments" cover the cost of arrest and whatnot.
You can get around the legality of it all by having each officer officially deputized by the County Sheriff.