I think this whole argument is a bit of a red herring; I'm not sure there is anything inherently better or worse when specifically comparing policing by government, or policing by private organizations. There are many other factors at play which can make one or the other better or worse. To begin with, I'll say that police should exist to protect and serve, and to apply the law equally, fairly and respectfully to all citizens. Of course, achieving that goal is easier said than done.

In the case of private police, the open question I have is how to align the profit motive with the above goals, because I'm not sure it just naturally fits together that way. I'm not very familiar with the example you've provided, but it seems in that case, he is concerned with the reputation of his organization in the community he serves. I think he mentioned that there is enough profit from his corporate customers that he can serve other community members for free, which is great. I fail, however, to see how this would be the case in every circumstance. What about cases where the interests of corporate customers and community members are in conflict?

I'm curious what your take is on Pinkerton, which was one of the largest private law enforcement organizations in the US around the turn of the previous century. From what I've read, they had a bit of a checkered reputation when it came to strikebreaking for their customers. I thought it was interesting that in your response to mk, you brought up WalMart, which I'm not sure is best example of corporate responsibility to society. I don't think they have any moral compunctions about engaging in abusive relationships with their labor force, or exploitative relationships with the communities they operate in. As long as their actions are profitable for their shareholders, who exactly are they responsible to?

In an ideal world, public police would be accountable to the public by voting and elections of officials. Should they fail, just as a consumer would vote with their wallet, a citizen can cast their vote at the ballot box. Obviously the situation we have is far from this ideal world; voters are discouraged, bombarded with propaganda and disinformation, or otherwise disenfranchised in equivocal ways. Creating public police which are responsible and accountable to the public poses many challenges. I think aspects of the media and failures of mainstream journalism, the wider partisan political system, and issues of poverty and racism contribute to those challenges.

The third path, similar in some ways to both of the above options, are non-profit community-based organizations like neighborhood watches. These kinds of groups, again, don't seem like some magic solution that solves all problems. There can still be issues of accountability, fairness and impartiality in the application of the law. You bring up the issue of competition, and the state's penchant for stifling it, which is certainly a valid criticism. On the other hand, plenty of private organization are just as happy to stifle competition as well. It may be easier for the state to limit competition, but the motivation for private organizations to limit competition will not suddenly disappear without state involvement. Especially if a business is built around providing coercive force as their product, the means and motivation for distortions of market forces would seem clear and present.

I think in the end, it comes down to accountability, regardless of who or how the enforcement of laws are provided. In the case of a private security company, they are accountable to their shareholders, and perhaps to a slightly lesser degree, their customers. They are accountable to the wider community they operate in, only insofar as their reputation affects their customers and the profitability provided to their shareholders. Of course organizations can be motivated by means other than profit, like non-profit community organizations or public/governmental organizations. That is not to say that those organizations are immune to the profit-motive, however, but simply that there are other forces which can more strongly affect how they operate.

If we're voting on the best car or the best cell-phone, I'm fine with one dollar equating to one vote; on the other hand, if we're voting on what the law should be, what our rights should be, or how those laws and rights should be enforced, I lean more towards one person equating to one vote. It's certainly a continuum, with different approaches having advantages and disadvantages, but I don't think anyone should get caught up in the belief that one approach is always necessarily superior to another. We should seek to identify the weakness in each approach and strive to improve them. Our current system has drifted into an uncomfortable symbiotic relationship between rent-seeking private entities and largely unaccountable public organizations. I don't have some sort of silver bullet solution, but I'm not sold on the idea that %100 NGO police would suddenly be that solution. Perhaps an NGO where all citizens are shareholders could be an interesting approach, but that seems a little like a government already. The devil is in the details really.