Macha on 3/9/2009 at 21:21

---

What would you think if America reformed the police departments across the country, in an attempt to increase the freedoms the general public have?

If you were robbed, or a crime committed against you, you'd have to pay the police directly to work on solving the crime, or be glad you'd purchased insurance to pay for police work.

Police would still handle "state-crimes" such as murder or robbery from a state-owned property.

This would mean:
-Less waiting time for Police action.
-More control over what happens in relation to what has happened.
-Less tax.
-Personal justice is done efficiently, where possible.

However, this would also mean
-Poor people would become targets for robbery, due to the fact that they are less likely to have insurance or the wealth to fund investigation.
-Possible increase in crime due to this.
-Returning to the current system would become much harder, as those used to paying exceedingly little tax, would be unreasonable about spending more.
-Possible increase in vigilantism.


This is a thought experiment.

demagogue on 3/9/2009 at 21:55

---

??? What? (Edit: @Macha)

But victims don't have anything to do with crimes. All crimes are so-called "state crimes". There's nothing for police to even do for victims. (Some people argue the state should care about and do something for victims, but it hardly ever happens.) And the reason is ... well for one thing, one of the bedrock principles of liberal democracy is the state can't lock people up for private concerns, only for wrongs against society ... So either you'd have to ditch liberalism and become a totalitarian police state (and already then you've committed yourself to illegitimate state action, which throws your entire thought experiment out the window because we now live in a totalitarian system; who cares what anybody thinks; only the dictator's opinions matter) OR you have to commit that the private-police can't lock people up; at the most they can require the criminal to pay the victim for his actions, or put an injunction on him to prevent future action...

And that more reasonable option leads me to the much more important point, the real heart of what you're asking, that we already have an area of law for private remedies anyway. It's called tort law. If a victim wants to use the system to resolve whatever private issue he has with another person's wrong against him, he sues him ... And just as you say, he has to pay the system to work for him. And it works out not too differently to the situation you describe ... poor people have less ability to get compensated and are definitely more targeted because of it, those with money can get compensated (or get an injunction) faster and more reliably, taxes are lower because private individuals are fulfilling this important social function on behalf of the state, and there is strong opposition for reforming it so that it's doesn't become a greater burden.

TafferLing on 3/9/2009 at 22:12

---

The point is socialized healthcare.

demagogue on 3/9/2009 at 22:53

---

oop, well, sorry :D

It's still a live debate about police and the state doing stuff for victims ... giving them state money to get their lives back together, mental health services, hospital bills, things like that (I'm not sure myself what states already do now). I have a friend involved in that kind of movement and I wonder how far they'll get, because I assume the inertia against it is the same idea ... the whole concept of "criminal" and "law enforcement" policy is and has always been entirely directed towards the criminal and the wrong against the state and the victim hardly ever even comes into the picture, at best maybe to "cooperate" and help identify and convict the bad guy, then the state doesn't "need" them anymore. When you hear the victim's rights people argue about it, it sound persuasive, but I don't know enough about how law enforcement actually works to know what to do about it.

heywood on 4/9/2009 at 00:48

---

Does this mean I won't get any more speeding tickets? :ebil:

Seriously though, the point here is larger than health care. It's really about anarcho-capitalism. Because if you're paying the police to provide security and law enforcement for you, there will be a market for that service, so private security agencies develop. And then, if the consumer and their agency gets to decide what level of protection/coverage/security they get, who is the government to say what constitutes an injustice or proper remedy, so you can get rid of legislators and regulators too and determine those things through private contracts between the agencies. And when contract disputes arise, the two agencies can hire private courts for arbitration. If that fails, there is always the possibility of violent conflict between agencies, so if it comes to it you need mercenaries. And then finally, what do you need the state for? ... you've arrived at anarcho-capitalism.

Obviously, this concept has some major flaws. But you can find a surprisingly rational and interesting essay on it here:

(http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html) http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html