• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

New Ideas for de-regulation.

king of Funk

TRIBE Member
My candidate: The Police.

We have a criminal justice code and a standadised test for Officers. What the problem with privatizing it's enforcement?
 
Cannabis Seed Wedding Bands
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by king of Funk
My candidate: The Police.

We have a criminal justice code and a standadised test for Officers. What the problem with privatizing it's enforcement?

In many respects they are privatized. They are pooled from a union labour pool. They compete for enforcement contracts and they provide security for money to movie production and concert promoters.
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
I understand what you are saying Ditto, but accepting private contracts & being privately owned & operated are pretty different. It sounds like an argument someone wold make for full privatization. "They're already almost privatized, we're just simplifying things by fully privatizing the force."

When the municipal government rents out the Better Living Center, does that mean the BLC is basically a private building?
 

expat

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: New Ideas for de-regulation.

Originally posted by Ditto Much
In many respects they are privatized. They are pooled from a union labour pool. They compete for enforcement contracts and they provide security for money to movie production and concert promoters.

Wealthy communities have been hiring their own security officers for many years. A recent Supreme Court ruling from this past summer said that in a "citizen's arrest" one could use "reasonable force". This is a HUGE benefit to the private security industry which i think was an intervenor in the case. (i'm fuzzy on the details).

So we can have someone -say, a young black male- arrested by an employee of a privatized profit-seeking corporation and sent to a privatized profit-seeking prison. Totally fucked up!!
 

KickIT

TRIBE Member
We should totally privatize the police force.

We'll be one step closer to...





















































robocop.jpg
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: New Ideas for de-regulation.

Originally posted by beatnik


So we can have someone -say, a young black male- arrested by an employee of a privatized profit-seeking corporation and sent to a privatized profit-seeking prison. Totally fucked up!!

Yes and to take it one step furthur we can now allow that prison to use him as free labour thus replacing workers in easily transition fields. This inturn increase poverty and insures that only people who are incarcerated can get the easiest jobs to get.

It insures a slave population in a fantastic circle. The american model is really starting to look like this on the outside.



But thats happening regardless. Do we really trust our city police officials that much more? I'd have an easier time trusting Honest Ed than Fantino when related to race!
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

KickIT

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: New Ideas for de-regulation.

Originally posted by Ditto Much
Do we really trust our city police officials that much more? I'd have an easier time trusting Honest Ed than Fantino when related to race!

I have to agree here. Fantino who really isn't publicly accountable anyways and Brumwell are screwing this city. Not to say a private corporation wouldn't either but there wouldn't be much difference.

*c*
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Ideas for de-regulation.

Originally posted by KickIT
I have to agree here. Fantino who really isn't publicly accountable anyways and Brumwell are screwing this city. Not to say a private corporation wouldn't either but there wouldn't be much difference.

*c*

there might be!!!


We can sue a private company as a society, as a society we can't sue ourselves.

Thus if fantino does something that is argued to be racist the group that sues him is directly suing me. If however they sue a private company I have a much easier time agreeing with there argument.

Its far easier to put limitations on private companies and to kick them around then government agencies.


I would preffer to go after the police union in court than to go after the actual police department.
 

fleaflo

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Ideas for de-regulation.

Originally posted by Ditto Much
Its far easier to put limitations on private companies and to kick them around then government agencies.

This would make sense if they had any accountability. Placing policing authority into private hands wouldn't exactly encourage people to sue the police. What kinds of safeguards are availible for the accuser if the party that they are suing is the same party that is supposed to protect them?
 

swilly

TRIBE Member
privtized police force!!!!!!!!!

come on mates av another one.

problems
1. You have a corporate police operation. a largel corporation say inco buys a majority share in the operation. Do you think any officer is going to compromise his or her job when they see inco breaking environmental regulations noope.

I know you are all about the say well that would be the ministry of environment that sortst that out anyways but just expand on it and you see the problems.

There are alot more i could list but i am thirsty so ehhh

swilly
 

swilly

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Ideas for de-regulation.

Originally posted by Ditto Much
there might be!!!


We can sue a private company as a society, as a society we can't sue ourselves.

Thus if fantino does something that is argued to be racist the group that sues him is directly suing me. If however they sue a private company I have a much easier time agreeing with there argument.

Its far easier to put limitations on private companies and to kick them around then government agencies.


I would preffer to go after the police union in court than to go after the actual police department.


except a coporation is some what protected in the law system. well not the coporation per say but the ceos and other administrators are.

all to often they get away with destroying the environment amoung other things and they ceo do not feel any reprecussions.

think about what would happen if this were applied to our justice.

also why does everything have to be privatly run?

cant we have some organztions that are not out there trying to make a buck

swilly
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Ideas for de-regulation.

Originally posted by fleaflo
This would make sense if they had any accountability. Placing policing authority into private hands wouldn't exactly encourage people to sue the police. What kinds of safeguards are availible for the accuser if the party that they are suing is the same party that is supposed to protect them?


well none yet, but we haven't deregulated so we obviously don't have any of the laws in place what so ever, they come at the same time.

Lets be hypothetical about this, being that none of us can make the changes and that we all have limited information lets brainstorm and play devils advocate with this one.


I figure that the police are unionized anyway. So you keep the exact same officers paid the exact same amount and regulatred in the exact same way. Everything it take to become and to be a police officer remains the exact same!

Now lets keep the employees at the police stations and all the laws and procedures surrounding them the exact same. Same people doing the same job working for the same money with the same hope of advancement.


Really we haven't changed a single thing yet have we...


Now instead of the city of Toronto being the owners and operators lets say we sold the land the police station was on. And lets say we hire a company to manage the operations instead of managing it using city council.

Does it change anything?



Police regularly work for others while in uniform. The police union provides police for film crews for instance and are paid by the private company through the police union. Now is that police officer required by law to involve themselves in an altercation unrelated to the film they are hired to work on. if a police officer is working traffic for a film crew and witnesses a purse snatching are they not equally required to act for both parties?
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Ideas for de-regulation.

Originally posted by swilly
except a coporation is some what protected in the law system. well not the coporation per say but the ceos and other administrators are.

all to often they get away with destroying the environment amoung other things and they ceo do not feel any reprecussions.

think about what would happen if this were applied to our justice.

also why does everything have to be privatly run?

cant we have some organztions that are not out there trying to make a buck

swilly

I'm being very hypothetical at this point, neither for nore against. Thus lets try to avoid the philosphical argument of "why does everything have to be private?" and just take it as a completely different argument.

rarely do you have more than 10 board memebers in a corporation. There imunity is actually quite limited in many respects however they are only responsible to a limit. They get paid like any other employee and they are responsible at a similar level.

In many respects this makes sense, the people who profit are the stock holders and they aren't responsible either.

But "Justice" has nothing to do with "enforcement". I get charged but I am assumed inncoent. Burden of proof is on the enforcement. if this doesn't change why does it make a difference. Justice is a matter for the courts, a search is either legal or illegal regardless of if it happened or not. An arrest and charge is either valid or not valid regardless of it occurs or not. The court decides what you are found guilty of and not the police force.

I'm not suggesting any changes to the court. just that instead of a police budget being given by the city to the police departments why not have a private company manage this and pay a singular bill. Less government employees and far easier for accounting purposes.
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Ideas for de-regulation.

Originally posted by Ditto Much
there might be!!!


We can sue a private company as a society, as a society we can't sue ourselves.

Thus if fantino does something that is argued to be racist the group that sues him is directly suing me. If however they sue a private company I have a much easier time agreeing with there argument.

Its far easier to put limitations on private companies and to kick them around then government agencies.


I would preffer to go after the police union in court than to go after the actual police department.

You can bring charges against officers.. but yea I was thinking about how untouchable the police force is in respects to lawsuits, but arguing pro-privatization of the police force in order for them to be more legally vulnerable is backwards reasoning.
 

chipotle

Well-Known TRIBEr
Re: Re: New Ideas for de-regulation.

Originally posted by Ditto Much
In many respects they are privatized. They are pooled from a union labour pool. They compete for enforcement contracts and they provide security for money to movie production and concert promoters.

And ultimately they defend and protect the interests of those in postions of high power and those who are rich, mainly against those who speak out against this first group.
 

luvslife

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by OTIS
You can bring charges against officers.. but yea I was thinking about how untouchable the police force is in respects to lawsuits, but arguing pro-privatization of the police force in order for them to be more legally vulnerable is backwards reasoning.

Jane Doe beat 'em.

But anyways, why would we privatize the cops next, if at all. We have to keep some kind of sense that they work for the people, and not for the money. Private securtiy firms do this already and that's fine. So we have a two tiered system. There has to be some force that works for those who have nothing. Even if there is corruption on the force, I like to believe there are cops out there who will help anyone anywhere not matter what it costs or how poor that person is.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

king of Funk

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much has the right idea here.

20 years ago if you had even suggested the idea of electricity deregualation you'd have been laughed at. The very concept was so outlandish it was beneath consideration. That was before the average household contained a Microwave, a PC, airconditioning and several televisions. We were less dependent on it then and still we assured ourselves that the government would always provide cheap plentiful power.

At the moment we consider Police Services an essential service. A PUBLIC service, but.....

An argument has been put forward here that Someone will suggest much like I have that law enforcement can be provided by the the private sector. Here's how It will happen:

1) A feasability study will be done. It will conclude that "operationally" there's no difference between Publicaly/Privately funded Policing. In fact for certain applications it may be cheaper to have private Police.

2) Politics being what it is, a "Trial" will be conducted. Since the trial will take place in a controlled space, with the enthusiasm the corporations seeking a new "market" are know for, it will be a resounding success.

3) The government in power will allow the first private police to patrol commercial/business areas :shopping malls, industrial estates, Office Towers. To placate the inevitable public outcry they will point to the increased Public policing in residential areas.

4) There's no doubt that the Unionless Private Poice will prove their fiscal superiority over the Public Police. Those living in upscale areas will be (discretely) offered he services of a raplid response law enforcement force catering to their needs for a safe , homogenous neighbouhood. This spreads, leading to lower home-owner taxes and isurance, taking care of the most difficult election issue of our time (er.....property taxes).

5) the Public Police Service is marginalised, leading to the defection of the best and brightest to better paying, easier, more respectable Private police. The lower castes unable to pay are left with a Public Police service which for all intents and purposes is of a lower standard. This is what the market dictates they can afford .

6) Needless to say the minor indiscretions of those under private Police will not result in major charges. On the other hand, since the blackmarket economy will be the dominant in Public Policed areas a regulated flow of the morally "undesirable" must be facilitated.

Whether you are left or right leaning you will agree that the result of this will be the defacto segragation of society. The disadvantaged will be left to prey on themselves, and the rest will live in a Garden of Eden , protected by an officially bought and paid for Police Force.

Of course one could make a case for Health-care being a better cadidate for de-regulation that the Police.......but that's already on it's way so why bother.

You could bother to ask your parents if the "free" healthcare system they grew up with is the one that will ask them to wait on a waiting list for 18 months for such "non-essential" surgery as hip replacements in a few years. Or you could ask your friends whcih ones are lucky enough to have health insurance that will cover them for a root canal.

So how different will that be, in a few years, from telling a friend you can take a walk in your neighbourhood because your home is protected by a "Private" Police force, But unfortunately you can't make it to their dinner party becuase of concerns about their local Police.

;)
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by king of Funk


1) A feasability study will be done. It will conclude that "operationally" there's no difference between Publicaly/Privately funded Policing. In fact for certain applications it may be cheaper to have private Police.

More than likely it can be proven to be more cost effective, that’s one of the issues but I think that the public has shown time and time again that police services isn't just about the money involved.

2) Politics being what it is, a "Trial" will be conducted. Since the trial will take place in a controlled space, with the enthusiasm the corporations seeking a new "market" are know for, it will be a resounding success.

There will also be a strong public appeal and more than likely a public vote in which our legal elected representitives will have the opportunity to speak on behalf of our elected interests.


3) The government in power will allow the first private police to patrol commercial/business areas :shopping malls, industrial estates, Office Towers. To placate the inevitable public outcry they will point to the increased Public policing in residential areas.

Malls, Universities, Office Towers and many private residances already hire they're own security anyway. As do our public parks and convservation areas. Not all police work the beat many of them are really overskilled for this simple purpose. Much like we don't need deputies to issue parking tickets anymore.


4) There's no doubt that the Unionless Private Poice will prove their fiscal superiority over the Public Police. Those living in upscale areas will be (discretely) offered he services of a raplid response law enforcement force catering to their needs for a safe , homogenous neighbouhood. This spreads, leading to lower home-owner taxes and isurance, taking care of the most difficult election issue of our time (er.....property taxes).

Public vs Private is unrelated to Unionized vs NonUnionized, this is an issue of implentation and not related to the argument of public versus private. But lets assume that you are correct in your assertation that a private police force is in fact cheeper to operate at the same level. A savings to government is rarely reflected in tax rates. Property taxes rarely will ever go down, more than likely however the additional funds will be applied to other programs that our legally elected officials determine to by priorities.


5) the Public Police Service is marginalised, leading to the defection of the best and brightest to better paying, easier, more respectable Private police. The lower castes unable to pay are left with a Public Police service which for all intents and purposes is of a lower standard. This is what the market dictates they can afford .

Again this is an argument with relation to implementation however it has already occurred in the form of private security anyway. My sister has an alarm system to act as an extra barrier of protection. If I hold a party in a club I hire additional security to represent my interests. To assume that the private police department won't have the same legal requirements for policing is silly, they will have the same political and private preasures that the police face now.

Additionally I would think that it would make more sense for the wealthy to insure that there is a strong police presense and investigative presense in poor neighborhoods that are plagued by crime. If anything I would be concerned that these are the areas that will be over policed. Many of our more colourful neighborhoods have private security in addition to public police monitoring the neighborhood for various reasons. Property owners in the dunda Sherborne neighborhood have found that its cheaper to patrol the streets than to deal with the vandelism and wrongful death suits being caused when they don't.

There is also a strong argument to be made that policing rish neighborhoods where crime is mainly or the property theft nature is far cheeper than dealing with high violence neighborhoods. We also have to remember that although I live in one neighborhood I work in another and I travel through several, my interests do not end at my front door, they continue throughout the city to where I eat, where I dance and where I go to shop. They include day cares and they include schools.


6) Needless to say the minor indiscretions of those under private Police will not result in major charges. On the other hand, since the blackmarket economy will be the dominant in Public Policed areas a regulated flow of the morally "undesirable" must be facilitated.

Minor dscretions by the police don't result in major charges because they are minor in nature, same reason they don't result in major charges currently. Regardless the police officer is represented by his union and not by the police department. Nothing changes with regards to this.


Whether you are left or right leaning you will agree that the result of this will be the defacto segragation of society. The disadvantaged will be left to prey on themselves, and the rest will live in a Garden of Eden , protected by an officially bought and paid for Police Force.


You assume that all rich people are on the same side. They're not, in most cases they are each others greatest concern. The poor guy is a source of labour at a cheap price, they guy with 40 million is a threat to all as he has the ability to deal real damage to financial interests. It also has to be remembered that these "poor" people are the renters of property, my interests as a property owner suggest that as is the case in sherborne and dundas relates to me wanting to have police in these neighborhoods as well.

Malls pay for security for a reason, the police simply can't be expected to patrol these areas at the level of service that the store owners require. Now in areas where theft is low and where crime is low malls use less security but in areas where crime is high they increase they're presence. When I go to a club I see club security, they are there to isnure the interests of the owner, in doing so they also serve the interests of the public at large.


Remember that the legal system has a very big divide down the middle. There is enforcement which ENDS at the investigation and charges being laid. And there is a court system that determines if a law has actually been broken and if so what the penalties for said act should be. Although the police might arrest you, it is the court and only the court that puts you in jail. We're not suggesting any privatization in this area.

What difference does it make who owns the police cruiser used for radar trapping people on the 407. It’s a private road, the police are acting in a very non investigative singular sense, in most respects they are little more than the private individuals who are hired to enforce parking laws.

Many police and activities of police departments don't need to be handled by the public police. They are because they always have been.





(as an aside nice post dude!!!)
 
Top