informationliberation
The news you're not supposed to know...




Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand the World
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
(more)
Article posted Oct 02 2013, 12:48 AM Category: Commentary Source: Mises Institute Print

Government Policing Does Not Mix Well With Private Security

by Dave Albin

When government police fail to provide adequate protection, people turn to private security. Yet, when private security becomes inconvenient for the monopoly security force (i.e., the state), purchasers of private security are punished.

Recently, public police departments in the Des Moines, Iowa area have been charging businesses and private homeowners for responding to false alarms -- that is, alarms generated by business or home security systems that were not the result of apparent criminal activity. For example, an alarm may be activated when debris blows by a motion sensor, and the local police department is then notified and it responds.

According to The Des Moines Register, this has been occurring a lot recently. Des Moines police responded to 3,806 alarms last year, more than 90 percent of which were false; West Des Moines police responded similarly with a 95 percent false alarm rate; and Urbandale (part of the greater Des Moines metropolitan area) police encountered a 91 percent false alarm rate.

Perhaps not surprisingly, local police departments are not pleased with this development.

"It's something we try to manage because alarms are good in theory and they do catch burglars and robbers and we get notified quicker. But on the other side we spend a lot of time spinning our wheels going to false alarm trips," Urbandale Police Lt. Rob Johansen said. "It's kind of a catch-22 for us."

As a result, fines are now issued for false alarms. In Des Moines, for example, the first false alarm gets a fine of up to $500, and $750 for each false alarm after that. This has netted the city about $700,000 since 2008 when fines were first issued. Other local cities pass out lower fines for false alarms, but the idea is the same -- false alarms will cost you!

For the casual observer, this seems to make sense -- why should law enforcement officers waste their time with these false alarms? The typical false alarm requires 20 to 40 minutes of an officer's time. This is time lost from performing standard patrols, or responding to crime elsewhere.

Public law enforcement, which we all are forced to support via taxation, is a service that garners wide-ranging support from most people and political backgrounds. In one poll, 83 percent of the American public supported giving the police more power to stop and search people who looked like terrorists. After the Boston Marathon bombing, 91 percent of Massachusetts residents favored the police shutting down parts of the city to look for the second bombing suspect, whom they arrested after being notified of the suspects location by a private citizen.

What all of this support indicates is the basic human need for security. Like food and shelter, people require security. Society requires the protection of property, which can be complemented by professional security forces. Nowadays, these are almost always public law enforcement departments who respond to reports of lawbreaking. However, it's interesting to note recent situations where people have sought private security due to inadequate public security systems. (See here,here,here,here, here.)

This indicates a couple of things: first, alternatives to publicly-funded police departments exist, including private security monitoring systems for businesses and homes, human patrols who alert public law enforcement agencies, and security agencies hired to watch over employees and property. The Pinkertons are perhaps the most well-known example of this. Second, at least in some areas, public law enforcement is deemed inadequate by the local population; that is, people feel the need to purchase extra security services in addition to those that they are forced to pay for through taxation, and yet, when these private services come in conflict with the state's security forces, private citizens find themselves paying even more.

This begs the question of why should people pay for the same thing twice. In a particular area, if policing is not maintaining order, why shouldn't the people there be allowed to choose whatever service protects them to the extent that they are willing to pay?

It seems that some Des-Moines-area businesses were not getting the security they needed from public police departments, and they sought extra security. To make matters worse, false alarms will now cost the businesses more via fines, at $1,000 per hour or more. Business owners are being taxed twice. Surely, at such a high price, totally private security systems would be a much more attractive option.

Here we find the unfortunate outcome of mixing private security with the state's mandatory and monopolistic security force. Citizens are forced to pay for services that are not sufficient in this case, and are then penalized further when their private security systems bother the public security service provider.

When given the choice, private security systems would vary widely from region to region based on the needs of the customers. In some places, no formal security may be required, while in others, something resembling a public police department would be created (for large cities and businesses, perhaps). But, upon failure of the current system in any particular place, the situation could be changed relatively quickly by withholding funding or resources paid to the private security service provider.

There is nothing magical about the protection of persons and property. The fact that public law enforcement departments use a one-size-fits-all model and resemble each other wherever you go, regardless of the local realities, is the result of state monopolies on security services and the public's unfortunate support for government police even where they fail to protect or serve.
_
Dave Albin conducts process development research and provides technical support for a food equipment manufacturer in Iowa. Send him mail. See Dave Albin's article archives.





Latest Commentary
- Why Not an 'Independence From the State' Day?
- Self-Determination and Secession
- Heresies Against the Imperium
- Keeping Government Bureaucrats Off the Backs of the Citizenry: The Supreme Court Responds
- Obamacare Travesty: The Supreme Court Continues To Make Stuff Up Out Of Thin Air
- Why the Media is Blaming Everyone for the Charleston Shooting Except for the One Who Deserves It
- Taylor Swift Vs. Apple: Post-Scarcity Growing Pains
- Too Good for Government "Work": The Death of a Baton Rouge Peace Officer









Comments 1 - 2 of 2 Add Comment Page 1 of 1
Anonymous

Posted: Oct 02 2013, 7:00 AM

Link
20138 First...how in the world do they really know it is a "false alarm" if no cause is determined (such as debris, fault in the system, accidental tripping)? Just because the police show up and no one is actively broken in or breaking in? BS, smart theives trip alarms sometimes to see how long it takes the police to respond, or try but give up.
For another, the 80% people are MORONS. Terrorists don't always look like terrorists (and we know damned well what they mean with "looks like"). It's too stupid to even answer, but here goes. Timothy Mc Veigh was the TOP TERRORIST in the US up until 911. He looked like a clean cut kid. The Unabomber, etc. etc. and if that wasn't enough, even fundamental islamists extremists don't all looke the same. You can even find blue-eyed blond arabs. Converts, etc. It's too moronic to go by "looks" and too arbitrary, and people that don't know that don't have any business "believing" anything about law enforcement.
Nickel's 2bits

Posted: Oct 02 2013, 1:26 PM

Link
7147 Come on: This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

Suppose you insist on setting your house alarm so sensitive that, "leaves blowing past the motion sensor set it off." Also suppose no cops are involved; just your security company that comes out every time the alarm goes off.

Don't you think the security company would bill you for all the unnecessary visits? (Damn straight it would.)

If there's anything wrong with government in this situation, is that ALL the taxpayers have been picking up the tab for "Joe Shmendrick's" false alarms. It's about damn time "Joe Schmendrick" started paying directly for the police trips he wastes due to false alarms.

And if Joe Schmendrick isn't at fault, he should pass the bill on to the lame designers of his security system, so they do a better job next time.


Add Comment
Name
Comment

* No HTML


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below
 


PLEASE NOTE
Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



Advanced Search
Username:

Password:

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Register

Cop Kills Man with Patrol Car While Speeding & Looking at Laptop, Flexes Blue Privilege No Charges - 07/03NYPD Cops Terrified of New Bills that Will Stop them from Choking and Illegally Searching People - 07/03Cop Tells Woman There's "No Excuse" For Parking The Wrong Way, Says It's Against The Law To Film Him - 07/03Why Not an 'Independence From the State' Day? - 07/03The Real Untold Story Of Government's Takedown of Silk Road - 07/03Chicago Institutes New "Amusement Tax" On Netflix, Streaming Services - 07/02Florida Man Sentenced to 8 Months for Driving Away from Interior Border Patrol Checkpoint Too Quickly - 07/03TSA Asks America To LOL At Traveler Who Had $75,000 Taken From Him By Federal Agents - 07/02

Man Follows Speeding Cop, Finds Out He Was Speeding To Buy PeanutsMission Creeps: Homeland Security Agents Confiscate Women's Panties For 'Copyright Infringement'Cop Shoots Couple's Dog, Threatens Jail For Trying To Save Dog's LifeSWAT Team Shoots Teen Girl & Her Dog During Pot Raid On Wrong HomeDurham, NC Cop Testifies Faking 911 Calls To Enter Homes Is "Official Policy"Indiana Sheriff Says US A "War Zone" To Justify New MRAP Military VehicleTampa Cops Surveil Pot Dealer, Catch Him Selling Pot, Raid His Home & Kill Him"You Just Shot An Unarmed Man!": Witness Says Police Shot His Friend With His Hands Up
(more)

 
Top