Quote:
Originally Posted by Humerox
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The debate between ya'll is fascinating...I thought I'd throw in something about this particular comment tho...
Back in the late 90's, a large unincorporated area near me attempted to purchase security service from an armed security agency I worked with, because approximately 14,000 people in an urban setting were covered by a single deputy sheriff. One.
We knew that not everyone could afford the protection, so we designated a "base" figure that we needed in order to provide private police services to the entire area, and set about securing individual guarantees from homeowners and businesses. We had some trouble...not from the state or other expected sources, but from INSURANCE companies...so the idea eventually fell through. It would have worked; the security agreements had already been signed, a majority of both individuals and businesses had agreed to "blanket" protection.
Point is, both state and private agencies can co-exist in providing police protection to the general public. Not only that, it's always been my personal opinion that a PPS could provide better overall protection because there are fewer restrictions -at least in my state - on private police agencies/security agencies - than there are on regular police forces. With good business model you're gold.
Please continue...
|
The problem, as I see it, is with you actually paying the peacekeeper's salary.
I mean:
actually paying it.
When the government takes your money in taxes, it's actually no longer yours. You don't actually own a ~350,000,000th of the country.
Conflict of interest anyone??
If you actually had monetary control over the authorities?
Noooooo..