i'm actually really interested in this because it's pretty funny. what is the argument against privately run police? that it would become a tyranny? but privately run press won't for some reason? you need private press to prevent government tyranny, but not private police? every way you examine this argument the contradictions appear. if the government wanted to impose tyranny what should it control, the press or the police? i think the police. but they already do that and only a minority of society believe we live in a police tyranny. i guess you could make the argument that *without* private press then the government would use its police control to impose tyranny and nobody would be around to tell them to stop it. so journalists are really just a shadow government and the real opposition. i don't know man, who cares

@augustus Police and press are very different. The former has the ability to repress where as the later has only the ability of misleading. Misleading can be fought against by raising voices, writing own versions of truth, pursuing people through dialogue. But repression cannot be easily fought against.

@aseem repression by private police can be fought against by hiring different private police. I'm not in favor of private police btw but I do think these two institutions are absolutely comparable when justifying who gets to be run by the government and I think it's no coincidence at all that in a world of private press, everybody believes that government control of press is tyranny, but government control of police is not.
Follow

@augustus @aseem I mean I don't see how there can be rule of law without the government having a monopoly over police. Otherwise don't you essentially have a bunch of different governments fighting for control?

@mandlebro @aseem Yeah, but I feel the exact same way but about the press. You have the private and public information ministries in a constant civil war with each other. This is apparently considered good and enhances our freedom.

@augustus @aseem The difference is that one uses words and the other uses violence. If information ministries are in war with each other it allows people to pick which perspective they prefer (i.e think for themselves). The more point of views there are the more freedom there is in that selection. For the police it's just who ever has the biggest stick makes the rules. Freedom is decreased because now there are more sets of rules and a higher incentive for using it to increase an individual or organizations power.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.