Hacker News Reader

Comment by EMM_386 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com