4 ms·

I didn't fail to, I didn't even try to. 1 - there is a process of public representation and societal input via elected government representatives, transparency

by avs733 5y ago

I didn't fail to, I didn't even try to. 1 - there is a process of public representation and societal input via elected government representatives, transparency, equality, and indirectness. EVERYONE pays the local government which then decides on priorities and apportions funds. Their taxes, like your and my taxes, go to all government services not just police. 2 - does not and is effectively equivalent to paying protection money to the mob. I'll be honest that I don't see this point as a good faith argument. Unless you are making some societal critique here on the number of governmental functions, up to and including aesthetic preferences for hair styles [0], that US society assigns to police fundamentally usurps the process of democracy? [0] https://centralrecorder.com/mom-calls-police-after-17-year-old-son-gets-his-hair-cut/ https://centralrecorder.com/mom-calls-police-after-17-year-o...

gruez 5y ago
> I didn't fail to, I didn't even try to. So you're just going to ignore an entirely valid concern? >1 - there is a process of public representation and societal input via elected government representatives, transparency, equality, and indirectness. EVERYONE pays the local government which then decides on priorities and apportions funds. Their taxes, like your and my taxes, go to all government services not just police. you seem to arguing for something entirely different. rather than the pipeline company paying $x to fund the police department, you want the pipeline company to pay $x the local government so they can fund schools or whatever. While that's a reasonable demand, it's also entirely separate from what's actually happening (ie. the utilities commission requiring the pipeline company to fund the police so taxpayers aren't on the hook to secure their pipelines). It's not really "oh no the police are corrupt because the pipeline company is paying for them!", it's more "oh no the pipeline company isn't funding local government services!". >2 - does not and is effectively equivalent to paying protection money to the mob. I'm not sure what's the point you're trying to make here. Is the government the bad guy here for making the pipeline company pay police for protection? I'm sure the pipeline company would be happy to get rid of an expense.

by avs733 5y ago

gruez 5y ago

> I didn't fail to, I didn't even try to. So you're just going to ignore an entirely valid concern? >1 - there is a process of public representation and societal input via elected government representatives, transparency, equality, and indirectness. EVERYONE pays the local government which then decides on priorities and apportions funds. Their taxes, like your and my taxes, go to all government services not just police. you seem to arguing for something entirely different. rather than the pipeline company paying $x to fund the police department, you want the pipeline company to pay $x the local government so they can fund schools or whatever. While that's a reasonable demand, it's also entirely separate from what's actually happening (ie. the utilities commission requiring the pipeline company to fund the police so taxpayers aren't on the hook to secure their pipelines). It's not really "oh no the police are corrupt because the pipeline company is paying for them!", it's more "oh no the pipeline company isn't funding local government services!". >2 - does not and is effectively equivalent to paying protection money to the mob. I'm not sure what's the point you're trying to make here. Is the government the bad guy here for making the pipeline company pay police for protection? I'm sure the pipeline company would be happy to get rid of an expense.