Should Police Services Be Privatized?

[Char. Limit]

Huh? Is it morally wrong for me to buy a private insurance policy, or is it morally wrong for someone to offer to sell me one? What action by whom is morally wrong?Well, you can't privatize mine, since it's already private. But it might be outlawed soon. Although the exact kind of policy I would choose is already illegal, at least my current policy is an agreement between two private parties: me and my insurance company.

Of course, I suspect that very soon, every kind of medical insurance policy I would ever buy will be illegal.

Er... the "them" in the second quote refers to traffic cops, not health insurance termites. And, yes, profiting off someone's LIFE is a moral wrong. I thought the reason would be obvious.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

To say things like healthcare are a right means you are infringing on the rights of the people who study and acquire the skills to be healthcare providers. You are saying to the doctors and nurses, "Your skills are the rights of others. You yourself thus have no right to charge for our hard-earned skills on the open market."

The idea that the physicians skills is something that the people have a right to has been part of medical ethical philosophy for thousands of years. The hippocratic oath and similar all have the clause that all persons in need of medical attention should be treated without regard for their ability to pay.

The profession decided this, not the government.

And where did these doctors receive their training anyway? Where did the schools they went to come from? How many received scholarships? How much of medical research is government funded? How much is donated from private persons?

The amount of government money and charitable donations that help fund medicine are there because of the great importance of medicine to the people, not for the medical field to be a highly profitable business.

 

[Al68]

Er... the "them" in the second quote refers to traffic cops, not health insurance termites. And, yes, profiting off someone's LIFE is a moral wrong. I thought the reason would be obvious.

It's obvious how a voluntary agreement between private parties, both of whom are satisfied with the agreement, is morally wrong according to someone who is not even a party to the agreement?

You claim that an agreement that I have decided is to my benefit is morally wrong of the party my agreement is with? And you're serious with this nonsense?

You are not a party to my insurance contract and neither is government. It's a private agreement, which means it is simply not your place to judge it either way. It's mine.

Create any kind of health care system you want, I won't be part of that system, so it won't affect me. But there is no justification for outlawing the competition. That will affect me and many others very negatively.

 

[Al68]

The idea that the physicians skills is something that the people have a right to has been part of medical ethical philosophy for thousands of years. The hippocratic oath and similar all have the clause that all persons in need of medical attention should be treated without regard for their ability to pay.

I don't understand the point here. Are you suggesting it's OK to enslave physicians because they're supposed to be ethical?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't understand the point here. Are you suggesting it's OK to enslave physicians because they're supposed to be ethical?

Did I say enslave them? I am saying that it is part of the ethical philosophy of physicians that all persons who need it should be treated. Doctors are possessed of skills important to the health and survival of his fellow man which are difficult to acquire and not many people have the knack for. To withhold these skills from people who need them and are unable to afford to pay is considered unethical.

 

[fatra2]

Hi there,

I have been flying over the different posts here. This one really strikes me:

Is it morally wrong to make everyone pay a tax to support universal police? Or should only the people who can afford it get police coverage?

Fact is that there are systems like that, where the richer people pay taxes, and where everyone works the community. This system is called communism, and did not work any better than capitalism. As a matter, I even believe that capitalism is one of the best system that can be. Of course, it has its flaws, but all in all in pretty good so far.

Cheers

 

[Al68]

Did I say enslave them? I am saying that it is part of the ethical philosophy of physicians that all persons who need it should be treated. Doctors are possessed of skills important to the health and survival of his fellow man which are difficult to acquire and not many people have the knack for. To withhold these skills from people who need them and are unable to afford to pay is considered unethical.

Sorry, my bad! I (falsely) assumed you were referring to a political belief involving the use of government force.

I agree with you here, within reason, it would be unethical for a doctor to refuse needed treatment, assuming that it's reasonable burden.

But obviously, doctors have no choice but to "withhold" treatment to many people in need simply because they just don't have unlimited time and resources.

 

[Al68]

As a matter, I even believe that capitalism is one of the best system that can be. Of course, it has its flaws, but all in all in pretty good so far.

Capitalism is the worst thing ever for poor and working people. Well, except for every other economic system ever tried.

 

[fatra2]

Capitalism is the worst thing ever for poor and working people.

Instead of simply stating that it is the worst thing ever, why don't you give examples on how to improve it?

I still believe that capitalism is not that much of a bad system. Unless being terribly unfortunate, it leaves the chances to anyone and everyone to make a better life for him/herself. Nothing is stopping you from persuing a great career at the stock markets, or to develop a business with a great new idea, or get yourself involved in saving the world from alien invasion. The choices are there, you just need to take your chance.

It does happen that people are very unfortunate. This is why a bit of socialism can never really harm in a society.

Cheers

 

[Al68]

Capitalism is the worst thing ever for poor and working people.

Instead of simply stating that it is the worst thing ever, why don't you give examples on how to improve it?

I still believe that capitalism is not that much of a bad system. Unless being terribly unfortunate, it leaves the chances to anyone and everyone to make a better life for him/herself. Nothing is stopping you from persuing a great career at the stock markets, or to develop a business with a great new idea, or get yourself involved in saving the world from alien invasion. The choices are there, you just need to take your chance.

It does happen that people are very unfortunate. This is why a bit of socialism can never really harm in a society.

Cheers

LOL. I think you missed my second sentence:

Well, except for every other economic system ever tried.

 

[fatra2]

Yes I got that one. Fact is that it is the best that we have. But if you can think of a better system: shoot.

Cheers

 

[Nebula815]

Yes I got that one. Fact is that it is the best that we have. But if you can think of a better system: shoot.

Cheers

Capitalism isn't so much a system as it is just reality. The key is the make sure you have a society with the proper laws and institutions so that it works properly.

 

[fatra2]

Capitalism isn't so much a system as it is just reality.

There, I disagree. Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. In this idea, I want to believe that individuals know what is best for themselves. Therefore, and after reading many papers and books on the different social system, I became a fervent supporter of capitalism. It leaves society to itself.

I am not saying that only good comes out of it, but it is the best ideology possible.

Cheers

 

[kote]

Regarding the difference between public law enforcement and other "industries," we need our police departments to be public because they are essentially above the law. The goal of private business is just to make a profit. In many situations, this has the auxiliary effect of enhancing productivity and improving service over the long term, making it a better choice than the alternative socialist or communist solutions, for example.

If the goal of the police department were to make a profit, however, we would surely have openly unequal enforcement of laws and rampant corruption. There is a strict conflict of interest between making a profit and fair enforcement of the law. There would be no one to regulate the regulators. The private police force in power would stop market forces from creating any competition and would be free to do as they pleased.

Of course, a public model doesn't ensure a lack of corruption, and a private model doesn't ensure perfect productivity or a 100% focus on profit. There is no such thing as an ideally perfect public or private company, so let's skip the ideology. Not only should we have both public and private companies, but no company is perfectly aligned with public or private interests.

There is also a continuum between public and private business models, determined by regulation. Businesses are criminally liable if they focus 100% on profit and ignore their government mandated regulations. Think about lawyers. There is a reason that law firms are not allowed to be corporations. Do they still go after profit? Of course. So do employees in public companies. But lawyers are thrown in jail if they ignore their public duty and throw a case to make a buck. All private business is similarly regulated to some degree.

Public vs private shouldn't be any more than a practical business decision. Which level of regulation, over a continuous spectrum, will best serve our public interest?

It gets more complicated when you have things like a public option in a private industry. Practically, that seems like a recipe for creating an unfair market to me. I don't see what the benefit is supposed to be. The entire industry needs to be reshaped, and I don't know how practically relevant the creation of a new public company is to that goal - but that's another thread.

I guess this turned out to largely be a response to "everything should be public or private," which doesn't even really make sense. The statement idealizes theoretical extremes that don't exist in the real world.

 

[Nebula815]

There, I disagree. Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. In this idea, I want to believe that individuals know what is best for themselves. Therefore, and after reading many papers and books on the different social system, I became a fervent supporter of capitalism. It leaves society to itself.

I am not saying that only good comes out of it, but it is the best ideology possible.

Cheers

What you are talking about would be referred to as liberalism ("liberalism" as in the 19th to early 20th century definition, not the modern definition meaning a big-government supporter) I think, or maybe free enterprise or free-market capitalism.

Remember, capitalism occurs regardless of the social system. It occurs in prisons, which are essentially like miniaturized versions of communism, in socialist societies (the Soviet Union had a whole underground black market capitalist system), in organized crime, in third world countries with lots of corruption, and so forth.

In order for it to function properly for society though, you need a free market to form a free-market capitalist system. Forming this is tough, and requires a lot of different things, which is why capitalism tends to fail in third world nations. You also need political freedom.

Pure capitalism without a free market is just another form of serfdom, along with socialism, fascism, feudalism, slavery, etc...

It's like democracy. We all consider democracy as good, but in its purest form, democracy is just another form of tyranny, same as dictatorship. You need proper institutions and structure for democracy to work (such as a free press for example).

No Westernized nation is a pure democracy, they are a structured form of it, like a parliamentary democracy or a Constitutional republic as we have in the good 'ole USA.

 

[Char. Limit]

a Constitutional republic like we have in the good 'ole USA.

Sorry, but everyone who's not totally naïve realizes that the voters don't mean crap. Who rules? Big Business, with lobbyists and campaign contributors pulling the strings of Senators, Representatives, the President (he doesn't fool me), governors, etc., etc.

The USA is a republican plutocracy.

 

[Al68]

Who rules? Big Business...

Who exactly are you claiming is big business ruling?? Themselves?

God forbid a business would be in charge of itself!

I guess liberty means ruling? So I rule if I'm free to rule myself? Puuuleeeease!

 

[drankin]

Who exactly are you claiming is big business ruling?? Themselves?

God forbid a business would be in charge of itself!

I guess liberty means ruling? So I rule if I'm free to rule myself? Puuuleeeease!

Bingo, how dare I start a business for the sake of profiting from it.That would be just... evil.

 

[Al68]

Bingo, how dare I start a business for the sake of profiting from it.That would be just... evil.

Now you know that those of us that still believe in freedom are just "for the rich", "pro-big business", "hate the poor", (insert favorite hateful socialist nonsense here), etc.

 

[Char. Limit]

I claim that business rules government. Just look at all the Senators and their masters, er, lobbyists.

Fact: All politicians are corrupt.
Fact: Disagreeing with the previous fact is a sign of naïveté.

 

[Al68]

I claim that business rules government.

That has no meaning unless you are claiming that government in turn rules someone else on behalf of "business".

Again, what person is being ruled?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I claim that business rules government. Just look at all the Senators and their masters, er, lobbyists.

Fact: All politicians are corrupt.
Fact: Disagreeing with the previous fact is a sign of naïveté.

Interesting argument. Believe you or I am naive. You might come up with something more convincing.

 

[fatra2]

What you are talking about would be referred to as liberalism ("liberalism" as in the 19th to early 20th century definition, not the modern definition meaning a big-government supporter) I think, or maybe free enterprise or free-market capitalism.

Not from the few books I read on capitalism. I also agree with you that capitalism should not be mistinterpreted with a political system. Capitalism is a society system. I also agree with the fact that pure capitalism should not be implemented, since it happens (rarely, but it happens) that people are very unfortunate, and society should help them also.

As for:

It's like democracy. We all consider democracy as good, but in its purest form, democracy is just another form of tyranny, same as dictatorship.

From my understanding, democracy is defined as a government ruled by the people, normally through a voting process. In its purest form, it sounds pretty good to me.

I also agree that no country in truly in this form of governing. Some try to get as close as possible to it. But it is still the best system around.

Cheers

 

[Char. Limit]

That has no meaning unless you are claiming that government in turn rules someone else on behalf of "business".

Again, what person is being ruled?

Why, the non-rich, of course.

Also, to prove my belief in cynicism wrong, please present an impossibility: an honest politician.

I eagerly await this example.

 

[fatra2]

Hi there,

Also, to prove my belief in cynicism wrong, please present an impossibility: an honest politician.

From your different posts, I can only imagine that you live in the US. You should also know that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, it is only possible to present some people that have been caught. But I want to believe firmly that the others are good, honest people, doing a tough, honest job.

Cheers

 

[Al68]

Not from the few books I read on capitalism. I also agree with you that capitalism should not be mistinterpreted with a political system. Capitalism is a society system. I also agree with the fact that pure capitalism should not be implemented, since it happens (rarely, but it happens) that people are very unfortunate, and society should help them also.

I think the point was that unlike other economic systems, capitalism isn't "implemented", imposed, etc. It just exists.

I think it's more accurate to describe a free market capitalist economy as specifically the lack of an economic system, rather than a system itself, since it's the lack of an "imposed" economic system that characterizes it.

We don't typically refer to other activities that free people engage in just because it's not prohibited as part of a "system". We would call it a lack of a system.

 

[Al68]

Why, the non-rich, of course.

Do you have any evidence that I (non-rich) am being ruled by "business" through government?

Also, to prove my belief in cynicism wrong, please present an impossibility: an honest politician.

I eagerly await this example.

You'll be waiting a long time, few are more cynical than me. Of course I don't consider it corruption for government to leave people alone. Just the opposite. I consider restrictions on economic freedom to be the enemy of the people.

 

[Char. Limit]

Do you have any evidence that I (non-rich) am being ruled by "business" through government?You'll be waiting a long time, few are more cynical than me. Of course I don't consider it corruption for government to leave people alone. Just the opposite. I consider restrictions on economic freedom to be the enemy of the people.

Evidence: It is against the law (government) to steal, unless you are in charge of a company (Enron, etc.).


I am cynical off the charts. Like I said, I believe it doesn't matter who is elected, they are all slaves to the lobbyists of K Street. Even the president. However, I did make a mistake in pointing the finger at just big business: I forgot about special-interest groups (ACLU, etc.).

 

[Al68]

Evidence: It is against the law (government) to steal, unless you are in charge of a company (Enron, etc.).

First, that's not evidence for your claim that I'm ruled by business through government. So, I'll take that as a no, you have no evidence and you're just spouting hateful nonsense.

Second, do you have any evidence that it's not illegal for someone in charge of a business to steal? Sounds like just some weird delusion to me.

 

[Nebula815]

From my understanding, democracy is defined as a government ruled by the people, normally through a voting process. In its purest form, it sounds pretty good to me.

I also agree that no country in truly in this form of governing. Some try to get as close as possible to it. But it is still the best system around.

Cheers

Well, the problem with "pure" democracy is that it's tyranny of the majority. Dictatorship is tyranny of a minority. Both are bad. You want a system that protects the minority from the majority and the majority from the minority.