Hacker News Reader

Comment by deugo | Hacker News Reader

I can't afford a private chauffeur, but I can afford an Uber Black.

I can't afford a private security force, but I could afford an on-demand subscription.

You want to defund the tax-paid police? Go right ahead! Now I want to collectively fund my own security force, for crimes that the police is understaffed for, what _exactly_ is the problem?

If your concerns about police abuse or neighbors calling security on minorities, then focus on fixing that (defund them?) and let me interact with the private market. Or is this controversial from a rich-get-security perspective?

View on HN

So in this dystopian future you require money in order to get security protection?

> I can't afford a private security force, but I could afford an on-demand subscription.

And if you run into hard times in life and can not afford this subscription? Are we going to have "levels" of policing depending on which company you are subscribed to and the higher cost ones offer "better" policing?

The "defund the police" movement will never be successful in a way that dismantles law enforcement. We'd have a lot more problems at that point than being forced to deal with for-profit security companies.

To me, your argument amounts to: you are rich enough to afford something, but poor people are not, so buying something unaffordable to the poor is a bad thing to do.

If anything, if 50% of the neighborhood has this subscription, and you are too poor to afford it, you can freeload on the enhanced security.

I do agree it is dystopian to require money for basic protection, and that this would not be collectively provided with tax money. Less if the protection is just enhanced (compare basic healthcare vs. being able to afford a private clinic).

If it was possible, I'd like to pay more taxes, then vote (could be democratic, not scaled to amount paid) on where it goes. If the neighborhoods really are problematic, then maybe the local government could hire on-demand security forces for when their police capacity is low (and hold them accountable and to government standards).

> you are rich enough to afford something, but poor people are not, so buying something unaffordable to the poor is a bad thing to do.

For luxuries, I agree that would be a ridiculous point to make (a poor person can't afford a new BMW, but we as a society think that's ok). But stratification among basic services that everyone should have is the opposite of equitable. This is in part why American health care is so awful if you're poor, and it's not a situation we want to duplicate with policing.

> then maybe the local government could hire on-demand security forces for when their police capacity is low (and hold them accountable and to government standards)

Not exactly the same thing, but we've done that with military contractors, and that has not worked out particularly well for accountability.

I think the American health care system is a current dystopia: people are going bankrupt in a first-world country for contracting the terrible disease.

Once basic protection, education, healthcare, etc. is offered to anyone (I do not see America in the future relying on private security forces for basic protection, so I think basic protection is covered), then private protection, education or healthcare should not be a problem.

If America really needs private forces for maintaining basic protection, then it is probably better they have oversight of local government and serve the wider public, not secluded to a gated community.

> you are rich enough to afford something

This is already a false assumption, you know nothing about me.

> you can freeload on the enhanced security

Great thanks I'm glad I got cancer, had to declare medical bankruptcy, and can now "freeload" off the rest of you hard workers who are doing the exact same thing I did for decades.

Please.

I come from a country where private security is very common. Used to be ubiquitous until people started getting beaten up because the employer said so.

So the police force just got funded enough to be bigger than all of the private companies. They are now the biggest private security service provider (yes, for profit company, separate from public police but run by the state, full of ex-police/military). It's quite ridiculous tbh.

If you're rich, you're untouchable, while poor people eat dirt in prison even if they're not guilty. Not that different from the US.

Incidentally, our military is full of used American equipment. Great value, maybe a bit too much for a country that wouldn't last a week in a war with any neighbour.

While the "defund the police" movement certainly has a lot of different motives and goals, my personal take on it is that we should be defunding the police for things that they are a bad fit for: handling things like mental health issues and doing wellness checks. Funding should be kept at levels high enough to handle being first responders to actual crimes and such.

Completely agree. Should not have taken a jab at it (maybe a reaction to those both supporting defunding public police and also vocally opposing my decisions in a private market to recover my security).

IMO The entire justice system should be revamped with a focus on rehabilitation in society and viewing most drug-related "criminals" as victims who need treatment for their addiction or illness. Also concerned about the militarization of the police, and feel their budget could be spend better.

You probably can afford a private security force right now. In LA rates are like $20/hr. Not sure what this citizen app is offering, except packaging an industry that already exists and trying to sell it at markup to people who don't know this industry exists. I guess that's a pretty decent business model actually.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com