I found South Island NZ about the most placid place I've visited. Someone did mention the Pacific Islanders were out of control in the north. Is that we're you used to live? As for Adelaide the northern suburbs near the holden plant have always been shitholes, can't see them getting much worse. They will have to find a use for the site though, otherwise it will attract trouble.
The alternatives may well fail even without interference by old government. When you can pick up an apartment block like this... Source: http://detroiturbex.com ...for $5,300 it doesn't really matter if your plans for the "renovators dream" go tits-up because the whole thing is worth less than a crappy second hand car. Don't get me wrong, I think the attempts at a Detroit recovery are a fascinating social and economic experiment, but for all intents and purposes, the government there has collapsed, the place is a shithole and the only people putting money into the place are fully expecting to lose every penny of it or are so poor they have nowhere else to go. Anyone thinking "Oh, look how free those people are without government interference" is deluded. Excluding war zones, you have to go to cities in South America overrun by drug cartels to find urban areas more dangerous that Detroit and the wonderful provision of services by private enterprises there will more likely than not end up looking like the favelas in Brazil than anything else.
Yes the place has a lot of abandoned capital with people still receiving welfare and government interference from outside sources. It will be very interesting to see how things turn out and if it will be possible to be able to tease out the real causes underlying any continued social turmoil from the obvious positive reinvestment by individuals. The destruction of key institutions almost always creates upheaval. This doesn't mean that the original institutions were good or just however (cf the collapse of the previous Soviet institutions). Defending the indefensible out of fear of the alternative is not a good way to reason.
Private security firms like that are VERY expensive, Govt contractors charge a fortune and with nearly no exception they are ex military / police so the Govt paid to train them in the first place which costs the Govt a LOT of cash in training. In a civilian environment when things go bad for contractors they need Govt to come in and clean up any mess they make after the fact. You have a lot of issues in certain countries in relation to extra judicial killings and use of force continuum. South Africa is a good example where private security / contractors have had some big issues. There is very little oversight with private contractors compared to Govt. If contractors loose kit it is not as serious as if Govt looses kit but the negative effects down the track are just as serious. Contractors have been known to try and cover stuff up as well as they do not want to loose contracts as it means lost cash. With private contractors you also have the issue of cost, they want to make money and they are there to make money not provide the best service they can. Anything outside of the contract and the cost goes through the roof, we all know how a $10 million contract blows out to $20 million. You also have the issue of the people who sub contract to the contractor and how they are looked after. Some of your smaller contractors do some seriously crazy, crazy stuff that would just not be allowed with a Govt agency. A lot of contractors are very "loose". Then you have certain contractors who sub contract out to sub contractors, those sub contractors may not have the necessary skills, training or security clearances which can have some crazy consequences. Also with having numerous contractors in the same area, overlapping areas or adjacent area each of those contractors can have a different SOP (Standared Operating Procedure) which means you can have very big issues as they may do things differently and they will not communicate with each other and they do not know how each other operate. In regards to training, skill degradation is a big issue with govt there is always training being carried out be it refresher training or training in new techniques. That really adds to the cost of govt providing services, private contractors provide a lot less training because it saves them money but the people working for contractors then have the very big issue of skills degradation. That results in a lower quality product being provided by contractors.
They are, and if you've ever had to hire police for a private operation you'd also know how hideously expensive their hourly rate is, I haven't, but escorting heavy loads is not cheap for example. And it's usually a Sergeant in the marked car. But remember, in the absence of a government (which is what we are discussing), I'm personally probably 25K better off a year in saved taxes. You would have "police" forces competing for contracts under a free market. Prices would depend upon the level of service you require, but of course initially, the costs would be large, prompting others to join the industry driving prices down. In the end though I'd have more faith in my private police force from Academi or the like following my wishes and seeking to protect my interests rather than my publicly funded QPS.
FYI we only have approx 220 police officers per 100,000 Australians (the US has approx 260). Most people are inherently peaceful and the average cost of law enforcement is comparatively low to its benefits.
So far you and Big AD have made points grounded in reality. The "other" side is still quoting Bastiat et al. I'm sure that will get you far in the slums of Detroit.
Training / security firms like Academic can not be compared to a police force, Academic fulfills a very specialised roll. The two are totally different animals. Would firms like Academic respond to a noise complaint? Private firms like that provide very " Specialised Services". They may be great for specific roles but as far as general policing goes they would be useless, very different skill set. As I said before thinking long term, they are ex police and ex military which means they have been trained by the govt. They would have done 8 weeks of training on Close Quarter Shooting, room entry drills then an instructors course another month and then range safety qualifications which take ages. Then thousands of rounds of ammunition in practice then the time associated with that. That is to then run one of their 5 day courses. Those private companies payed for none of that training. That 5 day course they run is a basic introduction, people completing that course would not be anywhere near proficient operators. If that training is not provided by Govt then private companies have to provide it. Private companies (in my opinion) could not train people to that base standard (or if they did the training would not be anywhere near as good - they need to cut costs to provide as much profit as possible.) The amount of time and resources would be to great, they take govt trained people who already have the training and years of experience. If the govt did not provide the trained individuals in the first place where would private industry get their people from? They can not train to the same standard. Over time the proficiency of operators would decline markedly and it would not take that long for it to happen. It is not rocket science and it is pretty basic stuff if you know what you are talking about.
I'm still working through your other post mate. But I'll comment on this They would carry out any task required if they tendered for the role. If not Academi, then a less elite company would fill the need.
Exactly. Saying that no-one currently provides a government monopolised service is one thing. Saying that it is impossible is simply ridiculous and completely contrary to all evidence.
I never said impossible, it is entirely possible, I am saying I do not believe it is practical based on evidence and what I have seen personally. I am sure private industry would love to do it, there would be massive profits involved with it. Private firms that provide "specialised services" in the Middle East have made fortunes out of it. Operators who work for those firms are on massive amounts of cash. It is a great industry to be in to make a lot of money in a short period of time and you get a lot of time off as well. I am sure they would love to expand to low level stuff as well, more money to be made - forutunes.... Where does that money come from though? Who pays them? The tax payer.... What happens when the flow of ex Govt trained ex military and ex police stops though? How long does it take to train someone? There are some big bills to pay and then they want a profit on top of that. Profit comes at the expense of training, equipment, etc or you have contracts that are written so that there is a "base fee" which does not cover consumables for example and the govt pays x dollars per item used (there is a profit margin added per item) therefore the more the contractor uses the more profit they make. Encourages a waste of resources but great contracts to be on to make more money, also the type of contracts that go way over what was "estimated" Haliburton is good at charging "per item" or a percentage on each item supplied. Another favourite is supply an item plus 15%. There are 2 items to do a job one item is $100.00 so if it was supplied company makes $15. The other item that is available and could be supplied is $400.00 and the company makes a $60 profit. Which item will the company supply? The more expensive item lol they are not stupid they are there to make money. In theory great idea practically not so much, in theory it is a great idea to sell off public assets, like electricity "electricity will be cheaper" how did that all work out? I know, I know power is so expensive now because it is the Govts fault, it would have worked but the govt stuffed it up by ....... If policing etc was privatised and all went to poo and I said "told you so" there would be a few saying "well it should have worked but it is the Govts fault" maybe it was just not a good idea and was never going to work.
You're thinking too narrowly. There are lots of cheaper and quicker ways of getting effective dispute resolution than we have now. W.r.t. electricity it is hardly a free market when the prices are controlled, the reliability is controlled, many expensive technologies are mandated to be used etc.
Can you imagine how thankful the residents of the cities and counties surrounding Detroit are that 'the human filth' remaining within haven't realised they can leave? I mean, all it takes is to walk out. They don't even have the wearwithall to do that.
This seems to be a recurring theme in your arguments, I'm not sure of the validity of it in this debate though. Yes the gov't paid for the training of these people, but what has that got to do with the concept that security/law enforcement/armies can be provided by privateers? Every permanent employee in any industry says the same thing about contractors, and every contractor says the same thing about permanent employees. "Democrats Cover Up Bush Era War Crimes": http://www.globalresearch.ca/democrats-cover-up-bush-era-war-crimes/11016 "CIA wants to cover up US war crimes in Yemen": http://warincontext.org/2010/08/25/cia-wants-to-cover-up-us-war-crimes-in-yemen/ "USA covers for Russian Mass Murder.": http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/190/history/usa-covers-russian-mass-murder-1245376/ "USA commits 9/11 atrocities on Chile": http://videosift.com/video/USA-commits-911-attrocities-on-Chile "Inquiry Finds Police Cover-Up in Deaths of 96 Fans at Hillsborough": http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-up-in-deaths-of-96-fans-at-hillsborough.html "Haiti: The Canadian-backed Coup Regime's Reign of Terror - How CIDA's NCHR-Haiti Cleverly Promoted and then Covered up Atrocities": http://www.globalresearch.ca/haiti-the-canadian-backed-coup-regime-s-reign-of-terror/7240 and just to keep a balanced view and show it's not only governments that cover-up stuff: "Olympus pleads guilty to cover-up": http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/business/Olympus-pleads-guilty-to-cover-up_12615465 And that would need to be paid for by those contracting the firms. Whereas the taxpayer foots the bill for government cost blowouts. These are quality control issues that can be adequately dealt with in the free market. You are suggesting that only a government controlled agency way these issues can be avoid these issues - this of course is nonsense.
The Govt still has issues but they have a lot less impact than you have with contractors. The point is contractors do not deal with "quality control issues" that is the point, they are more focused on cash. Who would police the contractors? The Govt or other contractors? If it was contractors you could have a company that is the contractor who sub contracts to another company that is owned through a subsidiary of the contracting company. There is a potential for all types of stuff to happen and it does happen. Contractors fill very specific roles and there is a reason for that they are not suited to a large number of roles. Perfect example, the British Army in the early 90's thought they could save a lot of money with contractors. Why pay a soldier as a Recovery Mechanic? It would be cheaper to just use a civilian tow truck driver as long as they had the equipment required to do recovery tasks. Sounds fine, great idea..... Gulf War one kicks off, civilian contractor goes excellent - huge money for this everyone is happy. British advance starts, section of soldiers to provide protection to civilian contractor (you would not need that section if a soldier had of been doing the job) Mechanised Advance starts, minimal contacts vehicle becomes disabled area cleared and the contractor is called forward to recover the vehicle. Contractor says I can hear explosions and shooting up there...... He is told area has been cleared and perfectly safe to move forward and recover the vehicle...... He says "Turtle that", he is told you are being paid to do a job it is perfectly safe, area has been cleared and you have a section who will escort you forward to do the job. He says "turtle you, I am not going up there till it is safe to do so" .. He is told it is safe and to get his arse forward and recover the vehicle. Guess what happened, the section of soldiers went up with the recovery vehicle and left the contractor where he was, recovered the vehicle. Contractor still got paid. They could not send him home because that would have left them with no recovery assets and there were no military personnel to do the job. One example where big questions were asked at a very high level. Another question what happens if he went forward and the Iraq military got him? How would that go? He is on TV and his wife and kids are saying how wrong it is that he was put in that position..... He is a tow truck driver, very irresponsible of the govt to put him in that position. A lot of people would say a soldier should be doing that job. Others would say any contractor can do that job, private industry could do it much more efficiently and cheaper than govt it is basically a glorified tow truck operator. A few people on here are HUGE on theory not so much practically.
Not as much as the potential (or fact) of things happening today with the state police force. Police rarely get fired or charged for arrests of people with incorrect charges, raiding the wrong houses, beating up innocent people. This stuff happens all the time and you are saying that it would happen in a private system. It happens now for gods sake. Private firms would be in competition with each other. Competition leads to a better service for a lower price. A monopoly leads to an ever crappier service with an ever higher price. I know which I would prefer. There is far more incentive for private firms to improve their service to their customers. This happens in every other industry the government does not have a monopoly on (or equivalent) This is conjecture, wrong and completely unfounded. Contractors for the government are hardly working in anything close to a free market. Contractors for government are no different (or possibly worse) than the government providing the service themselves. This is an irrelevant example. Try again. This fairytale you just made up is completely irrelevant as I mentioned above. Making up a ridiculous fairy tale about a COMPLETELY irrelevant point is no practical. Please try and use another story. You will have to have a situation where private industry is serving customers directly in a free market oriented way. By the way, private security is already used extensively in South Africa. Do you know why?
