The Privatization Dilemma: Trump's Call to Defund Police and Its Implications

Do you agree with Donald Trump that police departments need to be shut down because if you need police you can pay for them yourself? Let's explore the nuances behind this controversial statement and the broader context of privatization proposed by Republicans.

Understanding the Republican Stance

Think about who currently pays for police departments. It's the taxpayers, not the individuals who may or may not require their services regularly. This suggests that the Republican viewpoint propagates a stark vision: private businesses should control everything without any regulation, where those who can't afford the products sold should fend for themselves.

This approach isn't as glamorous as it sounds. Privatizing essential services opens the door to modern feudalism, where the population is entirely at the mercy of the socioeconomic elite. This offers a two-way street: private owners control and profit from services, while the masses provide the capital through increased costs but receive less in benefits.

Public Funding vs. Privatization

Let's face it; individual citizens can't cover the costs of critical infrastructure like roads, bridges, and drainage systems. Outside of personal property, we can't afford to pay for education, a robust police force, fire services, medical needs, restaurant inspections, or border control and military forces.

Many Western societies recognize the necessity of communal taxation, where everyone contributes to the public good and benefits uniformly. This model ensures that everyone has access to essential services, reducing the burden on those who can't afford them individually.

The Consequences of "Defunding the Police"

Imagining a defunded world where public services like the police, FBI, and DOJ are privatized presents a series of intricate challenges. Services would need to be fully funded and supplemented by private entities, resulting in higher costs for the public.

First, individuals would need to pay for security insurance, which would cover police patrols and smaller services like highway patrols and traffic police. Additional fees would be necessary for every instance of officer engagement, such as reporting crimes or dealing with illegal activity.

In the event of crimes, such as your house being broken into, the costs rise. Independent forensics, securing the house, investigations, and even security teams for arrests and property recovery would incur additional expenses. A finder's fee might even be included in the final tally.

The process of prosecution would also come with hefty costs. Everyone would need to pay for their lawyers and prosecutors to present cases, and judges would require payment. The overall financial burden would be astronomical, making it impractical for many.

Privatization and Corporate Profits

These high costs and administrative hurdles align with the corporate interests of Republicans who benefit significantly from de-regulatory and tax-cutting policies. Consider the healthcare insurance lobbies: their substantial political contributions hint at a broader pattern of corporate influence.

Taking this strategy to all industries seems almost incomprehensible. Private businesses would need to manage police, fire services, road maintenance, pensions, disability insurance, health inspections, passports, and border control. Examples like Texas, with its privatized electricity grid, provide a vivid illustration of potential failure.

The privatized grid resulted in blackouts and power failures because private corporations prioritized profits over investment in system hardening. This is a clear demonstration of the capitalist approach: make a profit, regardless of the costs or public interest.

Conclusion: The Burden on the Average American

Trump and his allies advocate for privatization not because it serves the public interest but because it enriches them at the expense of the average American. Rural Americans, who vote Republican, benefit from various subsidies and tax contributions, yet they oppose increased contributions. Their actions and ideology are entirely self-serving, aiming to maintain their power and disregard the broader societal consequences.

It's crucial to recognize that a policy aimed at shifting the burden of essential services to individuals will inevitably lead to a disparity in access to these services. This disparity, combined with the privatization of public goods, has the potential to create a third-world economic dystopia, where the wealthy continue to thrive while the majority struggle.

Ultimately, communal taxation and public services are the cornerstone of a functioning society. The Republican plan to privatize services is shortsighted, self-serving, and detrimental to the overall well-being of society.