Despite his usual knack for good timing, mk may have picked an inopportune moment to claim that “governments are demonstrably better agents of policing than NGOs.” I argued that it is not easy for commercial, non-governmental organizations to enter the market to demonstrate alternatives, after all nobody likes competition.
kzcondor reminded me of Dale Brown, who I think has done an admirable job of demonstrating the possibilities of non-governmental policing in Detroit.
- The key was to put the protection of the families before my own ... the way to do that was to use not the legal system to prosecute people but to prevent the conditions which could lead to violent encounters ... the cornerstone for protection is love, not violence, not guns, not laws, you cannot and you will not truly protect anything that you do not love.
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.
We could ask: "Can the profit motive provide adequate incentive so that a private security-providing business will behave close to the way we want?" It is a fuzzy, open-ended question, and it will be hard to settle on an answer. How close is close enough? I suggest we ask: "Which model, public or private, gives incentives that result in security-providing organizations behaving more closely to the way we want?" This is more in line with the claim mk made which inspired the discussion: "governments are demonstrably better agents of policing than NGOs." I see what you mean by "checkered past." But in the same spirit as above, I would ask if a private agency like Pinkerton is better or worse in terms of strikebreaking than similar behavior by police and military forces. If nothing else, at least Pinkerton has to be invited and paid for by somebody. The feds invite themselves, present a more difficult target for legal retaliation, and the bill is sent to taxpayers, whether they like it or not. Suppose we dismiss Wal-Mart's feel-good Community Giving claims about a billion dollars' worth of charity last year as so much propaganda. Wal-Mart provides jobs to over two million people around the world, many of them low-skilled workers with few employment options. Wal-Mart also offers low-cost goods to millions of shoppers, many of whom do not have the budget to shop at fancier outlets. Wal-Mart deserves much of the credit for the UN's announcement of success in reducing the rate of extreme poverty by half, five years ahead of the 2015 target. As far as I know, everyone who works for and shops at Wal-Mart does so voluntarily, and nothing prevents them from switching to any alternative they prefer. Can you name another corporation that has done more to improve the welfare of the world's neediest people?In the case of private police, the open question I have is how to align the profit motive with the above goals
I'm curious what your take is on Pinkerton
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.
Shared although the track record for private security is terrifying. This man should train cops.
Could you provide some evidence that would help mk and me decide if private security is better or worse than public policing? I would be interested in hearing about more cases in which the party receiving security services actually selects and pays for the service. I don't hear many complaints about security guards, bodyguards, or home protection services like ADT. Now that I look around, I see some bad reviews for ADT, but there are alternatives.
Blackwater comes to mind. I think the problem is that there are two sorts of private security. 1. A guard that exists to watch and report and call the cops if anything real happens. The mall cop. 2. The cop replacement who I think ultimately have all the power abuse issues the popo have. This guy in the video presents a third case police as a non -profit. I can see vigilatism issues happening. White citizen patrols, Neighborhood watch Zimmermans etc.
Blackwater became notorious for abuses while providing security services to the U.S. government in Iraq. "At least 90% of its revenue comes from government contracts, two-thirds of which are no-bid contracts." If you meant it as an example of abusive, government-provided security, I tend to agree, though I was thinking more of peacetime policing. For your #2, do you think the replacement cop will likely have the same freedom to abuse power when the customer has the choice of discontinuing payment for services?
Here is a video of Walmart loss prevention employees trying to apprehend a person. I'm not sure exactly what the legal issues are surrounding this encounter, as it occurred in Canada. It is rather bloody and violent, so be warned. In a way, would you say that loss prevention employees are sort of like a private police? They don't really have the all-encompassing mandate that I would apply to "police" but they are expected to protect and serve the property of their employers. The people being apprehended, detained, beaten or whatever, are not paying for those security services, they are customers of an establishment. In a free market, the most force they could bring against the person employing those security services is a boycott. How effective are boycotts, really, though? Sometimes they can be very effective, other times, very ineffective. It's a situation where one dollar is one vote. How does the free market address the situation where the person paying for the police-force is not the same as the person receiving the police-force?
Hello crafty, sorry I haven't gotten back to your earlier reply yet. Your response had good points and I couldn't dash off a quick answer while out of town. The video you mention is ugly. I think it is a fair example of what bad private security can look like. I don't think this is typical behavior of loss prevention employees. Casual research suggests that employees are usually instructed to confront suspected shoplifters but let them escape if necessary to avoid violence (though detention using force is legal in some states). It's not hard to find examples of excessive force used by police officers, even in Canada. I don't argue that private security gets perfect results, only that it may be a preferable alternative to public police. When you give someone a job to "stop bad guys," there will be abuses. In which case, public or private, are these abuses more likely to happen? When they do, in which case, public or private, are the abuses handled better? This incident happened recently (at the Edmonton West Supercenter, according to a comment) and I can't find any information about what happened next. But I strongly suspect that these two loss prevention employees will be fired. It is also possible that Wal-Mart will pay a settlement to the guy they detained when he sues for battery and his lawyer argues that the knife came out in self-defense. Imagine that it was a public law enforcement officer who roughed up a suspect who was resisting. If an eyewitness video led to an investigation, the officer might be placed on "administrative leave," i.e. paid vacation. Who has more to lose by violating rules and beating up a suspect, the employee or the cop? Wal-Mart has a public image to worry about. People in Edmonton can shop at Target, five kilometers away. But they have no alternative other than to rely on the Edmonton Police Service. When considering public opinion, which organization has more at stake? You mention that boycotts are not always effective. But they are something. How do you boycott the police? If you decline to pay for their services, they can come and arrest you. They not only have monopoly power to provide a service without competition, but authority to force you to be a "customer." And when abuses happen, the doctrine of sovereign immunity can leave victims with little recourse. After a SWAT officer threw a flashbang grenade into a crib, the family has received no medical assistance, no apology, "No card, no balloon, not a phone call, not anything." If the guy being detained stole from the store, he is not a customer (sort of the opposite). He is not exactly an innocent victim, but in any case he can navigate the Canadian Department of Justice if he wants to seek redress. He can hire a lawyer to represent his side. If he can't afford a lawyer, he can try Pro Bono Law Alberta. What more can you ask of the market? Every dollar you spend at Wal-Mart supports Wal-Mart and their policies, helping Wal-Mart grow. Every dollar you spend at Target supports Target, slightly starving Wal-Mart. Even if you have niche tastes, if there are some others like you there will likely be a business catering to your interests. If not, you can start the business yourself.How does the free market address the situation where the person paying for the police-force is not the same as the person receiving the police-force?
In this case Wal-Mart paid for security service, and Wal-Mart received bad security service. This outcome is almost certainly worse than letting the suspect get away. Wal-Mart will fire these clowns and hire better employees. How much more effectively could the market work?It's a situation where one dollar is one vote.
This is a glowing feature of the market. We try to solve some problems with democracy, the worst form of government except for all the others. Not everyone gets what they want in a democracy, but a one-size-fits-all public policy is supposed to please the majority. If people are not pleased, they can (after four years) look for a candidate who makes promises which appear likely to give better results, and cast their vote. If that's too slow, they can write as many letters as they like to the current representatives.