Should Police Services Be Privatized?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Char. Limit
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
71 replies · 11K views
Char. Limit said:
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.

The thing is, it is excessive regulation of Big Business that causes it to lobby the politicians like crazy. Big Business will in general leave government alone. If government seeks to regulate business however, business then will seek to regulate the government.

For example, Wal-Mart used to be a tiny presence in Washington. But since they have become the target of unions, politicians, and various other groups and interests, they are now among the top lobbyists in Washington.

That is why conservatives emphasize limited government as much as possible. You keep government as limited as you can, and thus you limit the influence of the various special interests in Washington (and the state capitals for the states) as much as you can.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Char. Limit said:
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.

I don't think simply writing fact in front of your statements really qualifies as proof on this forum.

naïveté - interesting that you took the time to write that out correctly in French.

What is your definition of corruption? At what point did you become the least "naïve" person and became the best judge of others "naïveté"?

Its just that making statements like these leave no room for argument on the real issue. Whether you think your vote matters doesn't change the fact that your vote, in addition to your peers, are what elect your officials. All the way from the local level to the top. If you feel that your vote is not enough of a contribution to get your personal ideals acknowledged, then perhaps its time to start volunteering to support your favorite runner. Those who collect the largest support base are the ones who get elected. Perhaps you should start directly supporting those who you think would better lead.

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

Ignoring a lot of other nonsense for the moment, do you realize Enron's CEO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay" was found guilty in a criminal court and would be in jail right now if he didn't die?

Also, he was the son of a poor preacher and delivered papers and mowed lawns before earning a PhD and working his way up. Damn those rich people keeping the poor down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kote said:
Ignoring a lot of other nonsense for the moment, do you realize Enron's CEO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay" was found guilty in a criminal court and would be in jail right now if he didn't die?

Also, he was the son of a poor preacher and delivered papers and mowed lawns before earning a PhD and working his way up. Damn those rich people keeping the poor down.

Never mind their background, once they are rich they immediately become an oppressive bastard. Weren't you informed in the recently published manifestos?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cristo said:
But that "right" is not infringed upon, nor is anyone planning on doing so...
The ability to buy private insurance has been infringed upon in several countries, and there as aspects of the same thing planned in the US.
 
Last edited:
Char. Limit said:
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. [...]
It is not at all clear what that means - "profiting off someone's LIFE". You likely mean in the sense of profiting by saving an individual from a fatal situation. Even in the most extreme versions of that scenario the morality of profiting is not always clear to me. Consider, e.g. organ donation. Large numbers of people die annually for want of a transplant, and far and away the reason is a lack of donors. Yet lifting the ban on organ buying/selling with all the troubles that entails would vastly increase the number of donors, a point widely recognized even by opponents (of which I probably include myself). Thus "profiting" would clearly save a great many lives. So which is the moral path?
 
Bah, I can see that I am not speaking well.

No, I do not vote. But I will... when I turn 18.

Next year!
 
russ_watters said:
It was my understanding that with universal healthcare systems, conventional insurance goes away completely. Is that not true? [...]
Some provinces in Canada until a recent court decision (2005?) banned by law the operation of private health services. The UK has private insurance/services alongside its government system (NHS), but (1) it is extremely expensive as participation is very small (~single digit percentage), (2) in many situations NHS rules are that, if one ventures outside of the government system to obtain, say a drug or operation denied under NHS, any further medical service for that illness is denied under NHS.
[...]So it is a practical reality that there is a reduced freedom of choice in Canada that some Canadians work around by coming to the US to access a system that is more free.
This addresses, I think, availability issues under the Ca. government system, a different issue from whether or not one was prevented legally from offering/buying private services.
 
Char. Limit said:
Bah, I can see that I am not speaking well.

No, I do not vote. But I will... when I turn 18.

Next year!

:smile: I am glad that you vote (or plan to) because that means that when we are taking the time to debate the issues we then plan to do something about it. I once argued with a guy about politics for over an hour before he finally revealed that he refuses to vote. I felt there was no point in discussing it anymore because my opinion was the only one that would be heard. There really isn't any point to arguing politics with a non-participant.



I also wouldn't want Diddy to get you "VOTE or DIE!"
 
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html

The US health care system is the worst health care system except for all of the others that have been tried. (OK, that's probably an exaggeration, but the US system is not as bad as conventionally portrayed)

Honestly, I find it rather surprising that Char.Limit simultaneously wants the government to control health care and at the same time believes that politicians are corrupt. I agree wholesale with the latter which is why I always seek to limit the power of politicians rather than increase it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What defines the "worst health care system"?
 
You could use a variety of metrics, as mentioned in the article. I think the most telling one is patient satisfaction. The point is that there are many quantifiable metrics by which Americans have better health care than citizens of socialized-medicine nations.

The main metric by which our health care system is worse is cost. So if you want to fix a real problem, focus on costs. Access is not a real problem.