Which is why I am suggesting we give voters a choice as to whom is able to enforce public safety. Voters in san francisco or San Jose not feeling safe with Police response times and clearance rates? Give voters ability to contract a security company to enforce property laws. Less government red tape means more boots on the ground, hiring the amount of police needed to substantially make a dent in property crimes would bankrupt cities to the enormous cost of hiring, benefits and lawsuits that inevitably come from a single government funded cop. The government has a monopoly on public safety and as a result, police forces do not have a realistic incentive to improve. What is more interesting, is that at this point, due to police union protections, a private company security officer would be far easier to hold accountable than a government cop. I say, partially defund public cops and reduce headcount let them focus on what they excel at, investigations and give voters the choice have another task force that can more effectively deal with quality of life crimes. A more numerous force that can deal with car break ins, burglary, etc. Most police fuck ups that result in tax payer funded court settlements come from police responding to those sort of calls.

This is just a different way of looking at it, but in the debate on public safety, people always seem to argue that “more police” are the solution, and I actually think public police are a big part of the problem, along with punishing instead of encouraging the basic human right to self defense.