John Mara wrote:
wrote:
That's a curious interpretation of the duty of government! My house is
private property too, but I'd be pretty shocked if I were told that
someone who vandalised it would not be searched for or prosecuted
because it was private property and therefore my duty to find and
obtain redress privately.
I would not be at all shocked if the police took a report, gave you a
copy for your insurance company, and filed the report away.
Yes, of course that's what they'd do, but it's not the same as saying
(as I thought you were) "sorry, that's private property - none of the
state's business." Maybe I misinterpreted what you said but.....
John, you misunderstand the purpose of the criminal justice system. It
is not to obtain redress between citizens - which is why compensation
is rarely paid and only in nominal sums.
I understand the purpose of the criminal justice system. I am saying
that privatization looks good on paper because many costs are still
borne by the taxpayers. The railway companies do not provide adequate
security for their facilities and they expect the government to make up
for their lack of effort.
Surely the cost of prosecuting (and preventing crime in general) is
borne by the taxpayer whether the property concerned is publicly-owned
(as it would be if the railways were still nationalised) or privately
owned. I understand your concerns over privatisation of the railways,
and probably agree with your view of that, but what has this got to do
with the state prosecuting criminals?
Marc.