Quote:
Originally Posted by Encolpius
Help me out, guys. I'm not sure I quite understand what's problematic about this.
If this is the 'inevitable outcome of progressives' goal of defunding police' (to paraphrase that Federalist piece), then fine. And? Nobody likes rent-a-cops (or I certainly don't), but that's all the more reason to privatize this sort of overpolicing -- each neighborhood's residents thereby have the opportunity to reject the aggressive policing of minor infractions like loitering and panhandling -- or choose to pay higher taxes to support it. Cities can cut their police budgets that way, and maybe buy buses instead. Anyway it sounds like private officers would be far more accountable to their communities... and far more easily fired for misconduct by their private employer.
Also remember that city councillors are always free to repeal the ordinances against panhandling and loitering, which would leave these rent-a-cops with practically nothing to do.
Spell it out for me. Why exactly is this a problem?
|
various armed patrols only accountable to capital seem incoherent and destabilizing to me in a supposed democracy but a lot is not coherent at this point. however you think this might play out you might want to consider that it will end up more violent, corrupt and insane in the united states than you might expect.