Lorne Gunter = nanny-state conservative confusion
September 25, 2009 · By Charles Anthony
Lorne Gunter apologizes for having blamed Robert Dziekanski who was killed by RCMP officers.
Next the force needs to be remade from top to bottom, stressing its responsibility and rectitude.Only then will it have any chance of repairing its tarnished reputation.
The problem with Gunter is that he has blind trust in the police and the socialization of a particular market: security. Like a common socialist, he just thinks we need to get better people commanding us and taking care of us. Then all will be well with the world. I wonder if he sees that the airport security staff should have taken care of their own security themselves.
The problem is that the airport staff had no choice but to resort the RCMP instead of taking care of security problems internally. That is how international airports are compelled to operate in these matters.
If this happened in a shopping mall, the property owner of the mall would have an incentive to seek a peaceful resolution to the disruption. A customer killed by the mall staff would do a lot of damage to the mall´s reputation. Not so with the police or the RCMP at the airport.
The RCMP hold a monopoly in their industry. Passengers have no choice but to accept their service whether it be good, bad or mortal.
A post at “Daimnation!” on how to deal with the RCMP:
“Some immodest proposals on federal policing”
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010447.html
Mark
Ottawa
Your assertion that the Dziekanski affair is somehow related to an apparent monopoly on the part of the RCMP is ridiculous.
I think the Braidwood Inquiry testimony has already demonstrated quite clearly that the officers involved overreacted to the situation, and were in several respects operating well out of bounds with respect to established procedures and guidance. – In short, the officers failed to act within the guidelines given to them, as well as reflecting failures in the chain of command within the RCMP.
Claiming that it represents a “market problem” resulting from an apparent “monopoly” is silly. It’s like blaming the manufacturer of your tire for the tire going flat after you drove over a nail.
Ms. G,
Are you having trouble recognizing a monopoly when it stares you in the face?
Your analogy is a dismal failure and conceals the blatant dichotomy in work ethic that exists in the real world. I can not think of any industry where employees can expect continued employment after having “failed to act within the guidelines given to them” and getting caught. Can you? Anybody else would be looking for a new job.
Oh, wait! Silly me! I forgot about government employees and their incestuous relatives: labor unions.
Charles,
I think you are mistaking the motives that drive commercial organizations for good moral conduct. The free market (such as it is) exists as a vehicle for commercial transactions. Money is what drives companies – not morals, not ethics – money plain and simple. To infer that a “free market” environment would result in fewer abuses of power by law enforcement agencies simply doesn’t add up.
If “market economics” resulted in “good moral conduct” then how do you explain the regular proliferation of ponzi schemes; the behaviour of Enron, WorldCom and others? None of these organizations could be accused of acting “rightly” towards their shareholders, the public in general, or anybody except a few very senior execs trying to line their pockets.
Law enforcement is a function of government, just as the creation of law itself is. For good reasons – countries that have tried the “competitive market” for such functions have inevitably deteriorated into feuding factions of warlords … and I’d hardly accuse Bush’s little experiment with Blackwater of being encouraging this regard either.
Frankly, law enforcement is not today, nor should it ever be, a “commercial transaction”. We’ve seen how bad it can get when the police are corrupt, and turning law enforcement into a purely commercial transaction guarantees that corruption will flourish.
As for the RCMP being a “monopoly”, so is the Army, the judiciary, tax collection, and the creation of legislation, and a dozen other arms of government.
For the record, I do not agree with the RCMP’s handling of the Dziekanski affair. That is a matter of oversight and accountability – something which is a challenge in most organizations, not just the RCMP.
I never said that competition and free entry in a market are more conducive to moral transactions. I am saying that monopolies prevent you, I and the rest of us the freedom to vote with our pocket books. As such, I think it is only wise to expect monopolies to abuse their power.
Since you are interested in economics, I will answer a few of your questions.
Ponzi schemes (such as Social Security and CPP) exist because people are stupid, lazy and want something for nothing. I am very sympathetic towards those losers by the way.
Also, Enron, WorldCom and Blackwater are not free market agents. They are monopolies that benefited from government privileges. So, please forgive me for pointing out again: you seem to have trouble recognizing monopolies when they stare you in the face. This leads you to presenting strawmen arguments and an inability to consider that police corruption is a result of their monopoly. You think their corruption would flourish if they faced competition. By your reasoning, customers would flock to corrupt service providers given the choice.
Charles,
I am quite aware of what constitutes a monopoly.
If you think that Worldcom aned Enron were monopolies, then you are clearly quite unaware of the marketplaces that they operated in and the other players in those markets. They in fact were parts of much larger, highly competitive marketplaces with other large players involved. They did not abuse their power, they manipulated the marketplaces that they operated in by engaging in fraudulent business practices. Sorry, but that is not a strawman argument.
I cited Blackwater as an example of how an armed, commercial organization is almost guaranteed to abuse the implicit power it has when placed in a position of being an arm of government.
Lastly, at no point have you actually demonstrated that creating a “policing marketplace” would in fact address the problems that you bitch and moan about in the RCMP. My claim is quite simple – marketplaces are money centric, and money has neither ethics nor morals intrinsic in it, and therefore, neither do commercial transactions per se. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to expect making a “policing marketplace” would materially address abuses of power within the RCMP or any other police force.
The real question you should be considering is in fact:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
… which is not a question about markets or monopolies.
Who is guarding who? is an irrelevent and odd query.
I am pointing out the lack of choice in the delivery of a service.
If a guard fails or more accurately kills a customer, I want the freedom to fire the guard or at least refuse to be his customer in the futurre.
I want a guard who has the fear of losing his job in the back of his mind — obviously something that does not exist among the RCMP and even more obviously something that does not exist in your analysis.
The question of markets or monopolies has everything to do with the choices consumers can make in subscribing to services they may want. Currently, choices are crowded out by the government.
As I said in my previous comment, I am not saying that a competitive market will exhibit moral transactions. Rather, I am saying that the monopoly control exists and it eliminates choices in the delivery of service. The service being security. You keep expecting me to demonstrate a moral outcome, bringing up that strawman and misrepresenting my argument.
In the case of the RCMP, the government dictates how airport security must be handled. Thus, choice has been eliminated and a monopoly is enforced. You insist on ignoring that.
What business do you have mentioning the free market when you make no distinction between market transactions that are controlled by government rules and transactions that are not??????????????
The airport staff had no choice but to call the RCMP. The choice of a private security guard service controlling the disruption by Robert Dziekanski was crowded out by the government and the RCMP.
What business do you have mentioning WorldCom, Enron or Blackwater??? Nobody was obligated to do business with them! and that is a good thing. The victims of those scandals were at least contained and not spread out over every single consumer of the economy.
Your demands for explanations of abuse under Enron, WorldCom or Blackwater are the height of absurdity because nobody is forced to be their customer nor their shareholder.
If every single tax-payer was obligated to own their stocks or purchase their services, maybe you would have some semblance of a whorthwhile analogy.
Yeah, as long as a monopoly firm has at least an other fellow monopoly firm with which it competes, you are content ignoring their monopolistic privileges bestowed upon them from governments and you treat their markets as competitive ones. Riiiiiiight.
Permit me to suggest the following reading:
Public Turns on Business by Adam Young
The take home message is that development, acquisitions and expansion of these firms were made possible by credit expansion in the fiat monetary system. Those firms would never have been so bloated without fractional banking and the printing of money by the central banks. They were the beneficiaries of government privilege.
Yeah and that was probably the silliest example you could possibly offer. How is Blackwater any different than the RCMP? Blackwater would not exist without the U.S. government being its biggest customer! Good grief!
I think I have figured you out. Let me guess: In your mind, a firm is a “private enterprise” and a fine example of free market economics so long as it is not legally classified as owned by the federal government. Right? For you, the fact that all of its funding comes from the tax-payer is irrelevent — it is still a free market. Right?
Charles,
It’s quite clear that you are complaining about the RCMP and its conduct in the Dziekanski affair. My point is – and remains – that law enforcement is ill suited to the “free market” model you are advocating. In fact, your attempt to refute my citation of Blackwater as an example of how things can go horrendously wrong in such a situation makes my point for me.
Blackwater was substantively funded by the US government. It was still operating at arms length from the US government, and as such is not fully accountable to the government and the people who are funding it for its actions – in spite of the fact that it is acting on behalf of the government.
I cite WorldCom and Enron as examples of corporations acting purely in the interests of money – and in doing so acting in ways that are abusive to both the markets they operate in. They clearly abused their power and position in the name of one thing – money.
Neither constitutes a monopoly. Your comments about them make it quite clear that you have little or no background in the energy and telecom markets – in particular at the time those companies were on the rise.
One last thought – the “who watches the watchers” question is the age-old question that always exists with respect to the arms of government that act with coercive power over the citizens. If there is one question that should always be asked when considering matters such as the RCMP and public security in general, that is it.
You have yet to propose any kind of workable alternative that addresses the key problem of accountability in a practical manner – you’ve just waved your little magic wand with “Free Market” emblazoned on it, assuming that somehow that will magically result in a less problematic environment than we have today – I disagree – for the reasons I have stated in this comment and prior comments in this thread.
I am not advocating a “free market” model. For the last time, I am saying that the RCMP should not monopolize the market for security at the airport.
By the way, where the hell is your watchman to watch your watchmen??? Answer: nowhere because your watchman does not exist.
Thank you, MsG, you exemplify — along with Lorne Gunter — the confused nanny-state conservative who, just like the socialists, thinks we need better government to solve our problems and watch over us. The thought of getting government out of a market entirely is completely incomprehensible to you.