4 ms·

I heard that the British developed the police as we know it today, as a response to private security forces. Read up on "thief-takers", celebrity thief-taker J

I heard that the British developed the police as we know it today, as a response to private security forces. Read up on "thief-takers", celebrity thief-taker Jonathan Wild and the Macdaniel affair. That scandal was too big to ignore, and public security was finally put under the auspices of the government. Somehow Libertarian circles manage to ignore this history lesson and expect that this time around private police and the attendant power imbalance won't lead to entrenched corruption.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
theophrastus 12y ago
The etymology of the word "police" supports your British security forces notion (with the addition of the Marine aspect): http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?&search=police http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?&search=police police (n.) c.1530, at first essentially the same word as policy (n.1); from Middle French police (late 15c.), from Latin politia "civil administration," from Greek polis "city" (see polis). Until mid-19c. used in England for "civil administration;" application to "administration of public order" (1716) is from French (late 17c.), and originally in English referred to France or other foreign nations. The first force so-named in England was the Marine Police, set up 1798 to protect merchandise at the Port of London.
icebraining 12y ago
To defend the privatization on consequentialist grounds, one doesn't have to believe it won't lead to entrenched corruption; just that it'll lead to less corruption that the public system.
jessaustin 12y ago
The timeline doesn't support this novel historical theory. Wild was executed in 1725, and the McDaniels were convicted in 1756. Metropolitan police forces weren't set up until the 1820s and 1830s. Did the theory you heard have any explanation for the 100-year gap between the scourge of "private security" (pretending for the sake of discussion that the thief-takers were in any sense similar to that) and creation of the police? One might be tempted to comment on the irony of your chiding "Libertarians" [NB: TFA is of unionist if not Marxist perspective] for their poor history, if one were not distracted by the implication that "entrenched corruption" is a rarity in the current regime.
- HarryHirsch 12y ago
  Actually, the timeline does support the theory. The historical nucleus of the Metropolitan Police is the force organized by Henry Fielding, in the 1750s, when the Wild scandal was still on everyone's minds. That provided a template, and the growth of London in the late 18th/early 19th century meant that local forces were unable to keep up. In 1830 or thereabouts the local constabularies were amalgamated into the Met. As for the corruption bit, with private security forces we know the weakness from the historical example already. With public police, public oversight puts a limit on corruption, at least in theory. Certainly London saw an improvement with the government providing police service.
  - hga 12y ago
    That theory seems to be rather sketchy in practice. Government police forces are policed by the government. Private police forces are also policed by the government, but since they're different organizations, perhaps in reality it would be better.
  - jobposter1234 12y ago
    I know nothing about this particular topic, but my first reaction was to find this statement highly suspect and at best full of exaggeration: "The historical nucleus of the Metropolitan Police is the force organized by Henry Fielding, in the 1750s, when the Wild scandal was still on everyone's minds" 30 years is a long time. Is Iran-Contra still on everyone's minds when it comes to discussions over geopolitics? I suppose it's still a factor.
    - hga 12y ago
      Iran-Contra was a damp squib. What happens if you replace it with e.g. "Nixon"?
      - danenania 12y ago
        Seriously? These days, the public consciousness routinely loses track of major issues within days or weeks. We're already forgetting the major lessons of the last decade (re: renewed war fervor and attacks on civil rights over ISIS). 40+ years ago is ancient history politically. I don't think the timescale was the same in 18th century England, but we're still talking about a generation-level gap here--I don't think you could just automatically assume a connection without some evidence.
mc32 12y ago
We already have private police forces. (security guards, police in private communities, etc.) On a different note, we also have privatized prisons. With re prisons people tend to not like them because of the incentive to keep people locked up. I don't see how privatized police forces would escape the same kind of criticism.
- hga 12y ago
  All types of prison systems have that incentive. Just because government prisons are non-profit entities doesn't mean the people running them don't make out like bandits. I've read that the California prison guard union is politically very powerful. Private police, though ... in an era where early death is relatively uncommon vs. omnipresent, what's their incentive to take risks beyond what they're paid for? That what can be problematic, there's many reasons self-help is outlawed, but in the examples you give there's no immediately obvious problem.
  - mc32 12y ago
    I think the issue with regard to privatized prisons (and perhaps would-be privatized police) is that there's a profit motive. A need to keep profits up. Whereas public prisons can take the hit --ie. the losses are incurred by state coffers. A private corp can't take that economic hit as well.
- nunyabuizness 12y ago
  The customer of privatized police forces is you, the end user, which is why there is healthy competition and relatively few "incidents." The customer of the privatized prison is not you but the state. As a result, they compete with each other to do the best "prisoning" (ie punishing bs rehabilitation, using them as almost-slave labor) for thirst cost. If you were the customer, (as in you directly picked your prison provider), the incentives would be much different: http://youtube.com/watch?v=SzYJYSm-MfI http://youtube.com/watch?v=SzYJYSm-MfI
  - mc32 12y ago
    I think the reason there are fewer 'incidents' as you put it, is that private forces are wont to escalate issues to state police forces. Some private security have severe restrictions on when they may or may not fire their firearms --due to not having the same immunity (indemnification) as state police forces. The video presenter presumes people will follow rules --even violent people will follow rules --what force is going to enforce those rules 'not being on someone's property', for example. And unless all communities are run similarly, this will create 'outcasts'. Bad actors would just find another place to lay low.
Someone 12y ago
Jonathan Wild: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wild http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wild Thanks for the pointer. The Wikipedia text seems way more of a movie script (daring escape after daring escape (if I had to guess, most of them involving bribes), tickets sold to a hanging, etc) than the very loose adaptation at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065209/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065209/, but I guess the movie makers wanted a happy ending. Maybe the director of Game of Thrones should have a go at this story?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

theophrastus 12y ago

The etymology of the word "police" supports your British security forces notion (with the addition of the Marine aspect): http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?&search=police http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?&search=police police (n.) c.1530, at first essentially the same word as policy (n.1); from Middle French police (late 15c.), from Latin politia "civil administration," from Greek polis "city" (see polis). Until mid-19c. used in England for "civil administration;" application to "administration of public order" (1716) is from French (late 17c.), and originally in English referred to France or other foreign nations. The first force so-named in England was the Marine Police, set up 1798 to protect merchandise at the Port of London.

icebraining 12y ago

To defend the privatization on consequentialist grounds, one doesn't have to believe it won't lead to entrenched corruption; just that it'll lead to less corruption that the public system.

jessaustin 12y ago

The timeline doesn't support this novel historical theory. Wild was executed in 1725, and the McDaniels were convicted in 1756. Metropolitan police forces weren't set up until the 1820s and 1830s. Did the theory you heard have any explanation for the 100-year gap between the scourge of "private security" (pretending for the sake of discussion that the thief-takers were in any sense similar to that) and creation of the police? One might be tempted to comment on the irony of your chiding "Libertarians" [NB: TFA is of unionist if not Marxist perspective] for their poor history, if one were not distracted by the implication that "entrenched corruption" is a rarity in the current regime.

HarryHirsch 12y ago
Actually, the timeline does support the theory. The historical nucleus of the Metropolitan Police is the force organized by Henry Fielding, in the 1750s, when the Wild scandal was still on everyone's minds. That provided a template, and the growth of London in the late 18th/early 19th century meant that local forces were unable to keep up. In 1830 or thereabouts the local constabularies were amalgamated into the Met. As for the corruption bit, with private security forces we know the weakness from the historical example already. With public police, public oversight puts a limit on corruption, at least in theory. Certainly London saw an improvement with the government providing police service.
- hga 12y ago
  That theory seems to be rather sketchy in practice. Government police forces are policed by the government. Private police forces are also policed by the government, but since they're different organizations, perhaps in reality it would be better.
- jobposter1234 12y ago
  I know nothing about this particular topic, but my first reaction was to find this statement highly suspect and at best full of exaggeration: "The historical nucleus of the Metropolitan Police is the force organized by Henry Fielding, in the 1750s, when the Wild scandal was still on everyone's minds" 30 years is a long time. Is Iran-Contra still on everyone's minds when it comes to discussions over geopolitics? I suppose it's still a factor.
  - hga 12y ago
    Iran-Contra was a damp squib. What happens if you replace it with e.g. "Nixon"?
    - danenania 12y ago
      Seriously? These days, the public consciousness routinely loses track of major issues within days or weeks. We're already forgetting the major lessons of the last decade (re: renewed war fervor and attacks on civil rights over ISIS). 40+ years ago is ancient history politically. I don't think the timescale was the same in 18th century England, but we're still talking about a generation-level gap here--I don't think you could just automatically assume a connection without some evidence.

mc32 12y ago

We already have private police forces. (security guards, police in private communities, etc.) On a different note, we also have privatized prisons. With re prisons people tend to not like them because of the incentive to keep people locked up. I don't see how privatized police forces would escape the same kind of criticism.

hga 12y ago
All types of prison systems have that incentive. Just because government prisons are non-profit entities doesn't mean the people running them don't make out like bandits. I've read that the California prison guard union is politically very powerful. Private police, though ... in an era where early death is relatively uncommon vs. omnipresent, what's their incentive to take risks beyond what they're paid for? That what can be problematic, there's many reasons self-help is outlawed, but in the examples you give there's no immediately obvious problem.
- mc32 12y ago
  I think the issue with regard to privatized prisons (and perhaps would-be privatized police) is that there's a profit motive. A need to keep profits up. Whereas public prisons can take the hit --ie. the losses are incurred by state coffers. A private corp can't take that economic hit as well.
nunyabuizness 12y ago
The customer of privatized police forces is you, the end user, which is why there is healthy competition and relatively few "incidents." The customer of the privatized prison is not you but the state. As a result, they compete with each other to do the best "prisoning" (ie punishing bs rehabilitation, using them as almost-slave labor) for thirst cost. If you were the customer, (as in you directly picked your prison provider), the incentives would be much different: http://youtube.com/watch?v=SzYJYSm-MfI http://youtube.com/watch?v=SzYJYSm-MfI
- mc32 12y ago
  I think the reason there are fewer 'incidents' as you put it, is that private forces are wont to escalate issues to state police forces. Some private security have severe restrictions on when they may or may not fire their firearms --due to not having the same immunity (indemnification) as state police forces. The video presenter presumes people will follow rules --even violent people will follow rules --what force is going to enforce those rules 'not being on someone's property', for example. And unless all communities are run similarly, this will create 'outcasts'. Bad actors would just find another place to lay low.

Someone 12y ago

Jonathan Wild: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wild http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wild Thanks for the pointer. The Wikipedia text seems way more of a movie script (daring escape after daring escape (if I had to guess, most of them involving bribes), tickets sold to a hanging, etc) than the very loose adaptation at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065209/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065209/, but I guess the movie makers wanted a happy ending. Maybe the director of Game of Thrones should have a go at this story?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]