Resolved: The police should be privatized

What you are supporting is a privatization of laws, bypassing the constitution, in addition to a private police force. I’d argue that your position is a very giant leap towards anarchy. Pro states, “they (private police) would be licensed by, and beholden to the state just like cops are now.” Who would hold these licensed private police accountable to the law without a government police force to enforce these laws? As you have conceded below they would be are accountable to their customers alone and will ignore laws that become inconvenient for them. Why would they not ignore laws against violence, corruption or sexual abuse etc when it becomes convenient for the highest paying company? You’ve simply asserted that they would not. This is akin to saying no rich individual or corporation would have an incentive to be corrupt. Clearly they do. Why would a company not gain an advantage by assassinating a rival, committing extortion or even keeping a harem of sex slaves. What happens when a police force supported mainly by Coke suspecting corruption over at Pepsi corporation? Do they attack the Pepsi police and get to the bottom of it or simply plant evidence of corruption? 1. The problem is private police have a bad set of incentives and your suggesting a far worse set of incentives; in your scenario they’re motivated to enforce only laws that support their customers and this is exactly like the mafia. What would the police force of a drug cartel look like? It’s estimated that violence due to drugs includes around 40-50% in Mexico [1]. This is largely between competing cartel security forces because they in competition with each other and the police is not adequate. Note that you did not stipulate that the laws needed to changed before the transition to private police. In fact, you’ve assumed the opposite would likely be true. (take a look at the harm alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical lobbies have done to addicts without legal recourse before you legalize drugs.) You have not explained why private prisons would not continue the trend of removing ‘undesirable’, dysfunctional elements of society with poor or non-existent. 37% of Americans still oppose gay marriage and these are clustered in certain demographics and certain states. What pressure would these citizens and companies (hey Chick-fil-A, I used to be a regular customer) or religious lobbies place on their police with respect to harassment of homosexuals under the guise of religious freedom? The same is true for abortion, racism, the right to bear arms and virtually all liberal and conservative perspectives alike. You’re giving the majority the power to throw out the constitution, the bill of rights and glut supreme court decisions directly to the majority or rich minority and you are advocating anarchy here. The people have a real responsibility to be a check on the government with anything from from voting to private militias. In the same way the government is obligated to protect the minority from the majority. Again you have conceded that customers would ignore laws they do not like. Pro stated “Private police would enforce laws only to the extent that consumers prefer.” 2. “There would be no monetary incentive for them to harass non-customers.” I disagree, there is an incentive to harass non-customers in order gain their business exactly like rival mafia bosses have harassed non-customers for protection money in the past [5]. You would have competing firms with different interpretations of the law and rival motivation enforcing these laws in the same conflicted area. I’ll agree that there are more private security agents than police but they are accountable to the public police and have nothing like the power given to police [6]. For instance, they cannot trespass on private property, search mail, impersonate a police officer, wiretap, film private areas, record private conversation, run a credit check, make an arrest etc etc. You’re proposing that we give them these powers. They are currently glorified mall cops subject to the police [7]. I’m not sure why you assert that courts could effectively arbitrate between two firms. A more successful firm would be better at keeping any information that negatively effects their customer out of the courts. Companies that can afford massive legal teams are already a major issue inhibiting justice for the poor. 3. “It is hard to imagine that private police, who have no access to tax dollars, would find it profitable to harass non-customers.” It’s extremely profitable to harass non-customers such as rival drug empire’s police infiltrating a rival firm. Rival prostitution rings could raid a rival groups to gain and advantage and seize assets. What happens when these rival police firms collide and each is incentivized to murder the other and/or expose the corruption of a rival non-violent police agency? 4. “Rich people and companies would hire the best firms to protect themselves and their property but there is no reason to think they would hire firms to molest others. Remember, police firms and their customers would still be held to the parmameters of the law.” This is just an assertion and who would hold these police to the parameters of the law? The police paid off by corporation A or corporation B? 5. “Police would certainly be authorized to use violence in certain situations, namely to defend their customers.” See 4, who would enforce these laws except rival police firms in competition with a massive conflict in interest? No, rival competing food projection services have the power of force in the exact same area. They don’t all have their own police with a major conflict of interest and a bias toward they’re own firms. Comparing food production with the legal application of force is simply not reasonable. Earlier you pointed out there are many private security agencies vastly outnumbering police that could potentially serve as a check on police corruption which is a more sensible option. Let’s be honest, rival competing companies would essentially own the police. There is a major gap of income between the rich and the poor in the United States [8] (I attribute this to mostly lobbyists not capitalism). When the rich own the police we would have serious problems as I’ve demonstrated. Your social experiment has already been performed through police corruption. It’s common knowledge that there have been many instances of police corruption where whole police agencies have been sold to the highest bidder in the United States such as the mob in Chicago etc. You have conceded that there will likely be police firms paid by criminal organizations such as drug kingpins. The results have been an increase in violence, theft and extortion covered up by these police agencies. China, Russia and Iran (oh my?) do not have police that you can purchase. You’re describing a situation where it is possible to by police. What would our wealthy cold war frenemies do with this when it is certainly not possible to buy police in their countries. If you thought drone strikes were bad, wait until a foreign power manages to funnel money through corrupt organizations and buy your law enforcement officers. The job of the FBI and CIA would become a complete cluster. White collar crime and terrorism were so much simpler when police weren’t available to be hired to the highest bidder. [1] http://www.cnn.com... [2] http://www.pewforum.org... [3] http://www.people-press.org... [4] http://www.people-press.org... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org... [6] https://www.schneier.com... [7] https://www.pinow.com... [8] http://inequality.org...