3 ms·

SA has (and has had) one of the greatest incidences of violent crime in the world, especially in its urban areas. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-ran

SA has (and has had) one of the greatest incidences of violent crime in the world, especially in its urban areas. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/violent-crime-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/violent-c...

eli_gottlieb 4y ago
So he lives in an extremely dangerous place with utterly ineffective policing and we're supposed to envy him?
- nwah1 4y ago
  No, the point seems to be that the private sector is able to come up with economical solutions to security when the government will not or cannot. Applying the same efficiency with bigger budgets in safer areas would likely turn out better.
  - jwmhjwmh 4y ago
    Privatizing the police seems like a bad idea. For one thing, it exacerbates inequality between those who can pay for security and those who cannot (or can only pay for inferior service.) If private security becomes the go-to for the well-off, who have a very disproportionate say in society, they will stop caring about universally-provided security of the police, and will let the institution wither, increasing inequality further. Inequality is bad for the cohesion of society.
    - nwah1 4y ago
      Agree. Although applying efficiency principles learned from the market seems wise, even under socialized policing.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    I doubt it would scale very well. It's easy to put a private guard within 5 minutes of nice homes in a high crime area. It's another thing to have guards 5 minutes from everywhere. You run into the same problem as a private sector post office or internet provider. They will not provide the same service to everyone regardless of location. The mail that has to be delivered by helicopter to the top of a mountain costs a stamp. The private shipping company wants a small fortune to delver there. The private internet companies won't provide service to some rural areas at all (even though the government pays them over and over again to increase accessibility)

eli_gottlieb 4y ago

So he lives in an extremely dangerous place with utterly ineffective policing and we're supposed to envy him?

nwah1 4y ago
No, the point seems to be that the private sector is able to come up with economical solutions to security when the government will not or cannot. Applying the same efficiency with bigger budgets in safer areas would likely turn out better.
- jwmhjwmh 4y ago
  Privatizing the police seems like a bad idea. For one thing, it exacerbates inequality between those who can pay for security and those who cannot (or can only pay for inferior service.) If private security becomes the go-to for the well-off, who have a very disproportionate say in society, they will stop caring about universally-provided security of the police, and will let the institution wither, increasing inequality further. Inequality is bad for the cohesion of society.
  - nwah1 4y ago
    Agree. Although applying efficiency principles learned from the market seems wise, even under socialized policing.
- autoexec 4y ago
  I doubt it would scale very well. It's easy to put a private guard within 5 minutes of nice homes in a high crime area. It's another thing to have guards 5 minutes from everywhere. You run into the same problem as a private sector post office or internet provider. They will not provide the same service to everyone regardless of location. The mail that has to be delivered by helicopter to the top of a mountain costs a stamp. The private shipping company wants a small fortune to delver there. The private internet companies won't provide service to some rural areas at all (even though the government pays them over and over again to increase accessibility)