3 ms·
In this case: yes, because it puts undue burden on taxpayers given the unique nature of the rail system. Does every jurisdiction with rail freight traffic need
by spamizbad 3y ago
In this case: yes, because it puts undue burden on taxpayers given the unique nature of the rail system. Does every jurisdiction with rail freight traffic need a fully staffed, taxpayer-funded task force to cover these things? You'd bankrupt a ton of smaller counties.
The whole world is not New York City or the Bay Area where you have several billions of taxpayer revenues sloshing around you can throw at crime problems.
The "tough on crime" crowd needs to be less ideological and think deeply about the fiscal implications of taxpayers of their policies.
- michaelt 3y agoTo me as a foreigner, it seems a bit perverse for the state's monopoly on violence to be extended to the employees of a private corporation.
- spamizbad 3y agoThe state does not have a monopoly on violence in the United States. Private citizens can and have used lethal force to stop and/or prevent certain crimes (and I’m not talking about kooky stand your ground laws either). It all makes sense given that we are, after all, a former British colony. Great Britain’s whole thing with its colonial empire was to outsource its territorial defense to its colonial citizens.