Hacker News Reader

Comment by para_parolu | Hacker News Reader

But do you hire them?

Our taxes fund them, so in a sense, yes.

We could fund civilian organizations to perform many of the functions of police, and do so without weapons and oppressive technology. Then reduce our police forces.

Portland actually has such an organization: https://www.portland.gov/streetresponse

Denver also https://kdvr.com/news/local/study-denvers-star-program-reduc...

Ah yes Portland. The bastion of civil protection and order.

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2022/10/82-of-portland-area...

Im going to guess we disagree about the state of policing, a couple of things you should consider though:

The Oregonian has a pretty obvious slant and bias in related reporting.

Another thing worth considering is “who’s benefiting” from all the reporting about “dirty” “homeless filled” “unsafe” Portland, as generally it’s conservative and pro police organizations that pull it out as a scare tactic to all the people in the suburbs or even more rural areas of the state.

Reduce or eliminate entirely? I'd advocate for the latter.

I would too, but I'd consider the former a win to a lesser degree.

The capital class will never allow for the elimination of police.

If they do, the result will be worse, because it will have been because they realized they could hire private security for cheaper than funding public protection.

If you don't like the unaccountability of cops, look forward to the accountability of Pinkerton private investigators.

eh, at least with Pinkerton PIs they are not literally on the same payroll as prosecutors and judges. There can be a little daylight between them.

Maybe I'm part of that "capital class", I'm not sure what that means exactly but I know I'd much rather look after my own affairs.

The capital class are the folks who will be able to hire bodyguards or pay subscriptions to private police forces if we do away with public police.

Because the alternative to public policing isn't no police; it's rich folk paying the interior-territorial arm of PMCs to march around their property with body armor and high-powered rifles, while the rest of the populace sorts things out themselves. We didn't always have public policing, and one can look at history to see what the prior alternatives were.

That's an assumption. I have my concealed carry card. I can/ do/ and would continue protect myself. Other people can do the same without resorting to hiring. There's also a long history of self protection without the use of hired goons.

> Other people can do the same without resorting to hiring

Not nearly as many as are currently protected by public police. I'm sure we can find a better alternative to the status quo than "Tell grandma she needs a license and some monthly range time." Better make sure we gift her a firearm with low kickback for Christmas; her wrist bones have been so frail these past few years...

I'm doubtful counting on the police in real time to help grandma if she's in trouble, they normally show up well after the damage is done. But you're right some people are not able to protect themselves but I'm still not convinced they would be worse off.

You are probably not part of the capital class, even if you have a lot of money. You're invested in doing your own security and don't publicly advertise whatever financial power you have in a way that might make you a target.

But realistically, you could have John Wick levels of combat skill and you would still have yawning holes in your security. You have to sleep and you can only be in one place at once, so there is only so much physical property you can fully protect. Wealthy capitalists outsource their security and mitigate their paranoia by dividing full awareness of their security surface between compartmentalized vendors, each of whom has to assume they're under surveillance by one of the others. If you are personally wealthy, congratulations, but I'm gonna guess you live somewhere with high public safety and never worry about your lawyers or accountants taking up with kidnappers or extortionists.

The capital class is not just about having a lot of money, but being able to leverage it in the acquisition of political and social power. If you have to conceal your power, do you really have it?

I don't think I would trust hired security, unless you are literally the richest person there could always be a higher bidder. The mercs could turn double at any time and you gave them the keys.

And not showcasing power, concealing or misdirecting the perception of your power or lack thereof, has been identified as an important strategy from Sun Tzu to Teddy Roosevelt.

One of the main roles of police is enforcing laws. Are you proposing to eliminate the enforcement of laws? If not, what is the group chartered with enforcing laws going to be called and how will it be different from police?

The article this comment is under is about police "breaking" the law, not enforcing it, so you can see I'm already skeptical of what you posit their role in society is. For not so important people like me the "enforcement" is non-existant, they show up after a crime has been committed, write a report, and do nothing. Not very different from no police force. The only time they actually do an investigation is when a bank is robbed or someone rich and influential is hurt. I'd rather just stop paying for the non-service I don't receive.

The article is also about other law enforcement agents enforcing the laws against that.

So we can trust them to break and enforce the law. Sounds confusing and like a net zero to me. Why are we paying for that?

For the record, the police are a civilian organization, the fact that they like to gear up in military equipment and pretend they're in a war is part of the problem

Of course. But it's common enough lingo to use phrases like "civilian oversight" to refer to non police community members.

The intent is to suggest unarmed, non law enforcement organizations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com