Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 27 Jul '17 10:36
    Should America fully embrace capitalism and the freedom to choose by creating private police forces, surely by having competing forces it would drive down costs and increase productivity.
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    27 Jul '17 11:12
    Originally posted by @stellspalfie
    Should America fully embrace capitalism and the freedom to choose by creating private police forces, surely by having competing forces it would drive down costs and increase productivity.
    No country fully embraces capitalism to the point that it privatizes everything.

    And private police forces are common... as in security forces in private complexes.

    Groups of people, including cities, should be free to experiment with various approaches and see what works best.

    Not everything has to be so damned political. Your OP has a silly "us vs. them" undertone.
  3. 27 Jul '17 13:27
    Originally posted by @sh76
    No country fully embraces capitalism to the point that it privatizes everything.

    And private police forces are common... as in security forces in private complexes.

    Groups of people, including cities, should be free to experiment with various approaches and see what works best.

    Not everything has to be so damned political. Your OP has a silly "us vs. them" undertone.
    Why do things have to be so damned political? Because government continues to expand and take over more and more of our affairs.

    Now everything we do and say is tied into politics it seems these days.
  4. 27 Jul '17 15:14
    Originally posted by @sh76
    No country fully embraces capitalism to the point that it privatizes everything.

    And private police forces are common... as in security forces in private complexes.

    Groups of people, including cities, should be free to experiment with various approaches and see what works best.

    Not everything has to be so damned political. Your OP has a silly "us vs. them" undertone.
    No country fully embraces capitalism to the point that it privatizes everything.

    Correct, but why should the police be exempt to the laws of capitalism? Would Americans accept it in principle? Surely it would be better if you could pay for the type of coverage you want and can afford?
  5. 27 Jul '17 15:32
    Originally posted by @stellspalfie
    Should America fully embrace capitalism and the freedom to choose by creating private police forces, surely by having competing forces it would drive down costs and increase productivity.
    Virtually everyone believes the government should provide public goods that are non-rival (benefit everyone) and non-excludable (there is no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay). This is far different than something like health care.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    27 Jul '17 17:09
    Originally posted by @stellspalfie
    [b]No country fully embraces capitalism to the point that it privatizes everything.

    Correct, but why should the police be exempt to the laws of capitalism? Would Americans accept it in principle? Surely it would be better if you could pay for the type of coverage you want and can afford?[/b]
    Assuming your question is not rhetorical, virtually every free market capitalist thinker concedes that certain services are better managed publicly than privately. Everything is a matter of incentives. People don't have individual incentives to fund police, fire departments, roads, etc. So public funding of those things is usually more efficient. Of course, there are exceptions as in the cases of private communities.

    Capitalism is about incentives; not about dogmatic adherence to some blind principle that the free market solves everything.
  7. 27 Jul '17 17:19
    Originally posted by @stellspalfie
    Should America fully embrace capitalism and the freedom to choose by creating private police forces, surely by having competing forces it would drive down costs and increase productivity.
    The Constitution requires the government to pass laws and enforce them. But of course the Constitution also limits the government as well.
  8. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    28 Jul '17 15:10 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @quackquack
    Virtually everyone believes the government should provide public goods that are non-rival (benefit everyone) and non-excludable (there is no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay). This is far different than something like health care.
    Quite so. Health care is non rival but emminently excludable. You can exclude the poor, the blacks, migrants, women, non-Christians ....
  9. 28 Jul '17 19:48
    Originally posted by @eladar
    The Constitution requires the government to pass laws and enforce them. But of course the Constitution also limits the government as well.
    So you are against private police because of the constitution? If free healthcare at the point of use was in the constitution you would support it?
  10. 28 Jul '17 19:52
    Originally posted by @sh76
    Assuming your question is not rhetorical, virtually every free market capitalist thinker concedes that certain services are better managed publicly than privately. Everything is a matter of incentives. People don't have individual incentives to fund police, fire departments, roads, etc. So public funding of those things is usually more efficient. Of course, th ...[text shortened]... es; not about dogmatic adherence to some blind principle that the free market solves everything.
    Why would healthcare in america be any different to police or fire?
  11. 28 Jul '17 20:02
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    Quite so. Health care is non rival but emminently excludable. You can exclude the poor, the blacks, migrants, women, non-Christians ....
    A country can guarantee a certain basic level of healthcare to everyone as the United States always has (via programs like Medicaid). If people want more then this level, they can pay for it with their own money. Suggesting that this allocation is based on race or religion is untrue and inflammatory.
  12. 28 Jul '17 20:48
    Originally posted by @stellspalfie
    So you are against private police because of the constitution? If free healthcare at the point of use was in the constitution you would support it?
    Sure, it would be Constitutional.
  13. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    28 Jul '17 22:47
    Originally posted by @quackquack
    A country can guarantee a certain basic level of healthcare to everyone as the United States always has (via programs like Medicaid). If people want more then this level, they can pay for it with their own money. Suggesting that this allocation is based on race or religion is untrue and inflammatory.
    Just for starters try reading Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time by Ira Katznelson. You may think it is not directly relevant, but it sets out in great detail the way US legislators gutted social programmes to ensure that they would primarily benefit white Americans while excluding black Americans from as much as possible. In other words, do not waste time with mystical debates about obscure, indirect forms of unfairness. It is in your face.
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    28 Jul '17 23:16
    Originally posted by @stellspalfie
    Why would healthcare in america be any different to police or fire?
    Fire-fighting wasn't always publicly funded.

    YouTube : Gangs of NY Firefighters