Private security firms...

By -
Turn on the "protected." Who could have imagined?

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell7:42 PM

    The Mexican drug cartels are a really interesting phenomenon since they have the power to rival Mexico's security forces. When I look at these things, though, I try to avoid using the labels "public" or "private", since those only make sense in a larger context. So, I'd probably call them for-profit security organizations or something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10:43 AM

    A friend of mine used to live in El Salvador. People in his neighborhood kept getting robbed, so they pooled their resources to hire a couple of security guys to patrol the area... only to have the security guys rob them all at knife point.

    There's a lesson here somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob Murphy9:41 PM

    One of my friends bought food from a privately owned restaurant, and he got sick.

    There's a lesson here somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah9:54 PM

      There sure is Bob: both states and private enterprises are populated by flawed human beings, and both screw up.

      Delete
  4. Samson Corwell7:06 PM

    I'm beginning to suspect that labeling might have a distorting effect. For example, it seems perfectly fine to call the Pinkertons a "private security firm", but to apply that label to a clan in Somalia or a drug cartel seems off. The "private" in the phrase "private security firm" only makes sense if there is a "public" with which to contrast it against. Is this something along the lines of what you mean by rationalism?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more