Even public sector versions that ARENT working would be a much better situation. The only thing worse than a secretly corrupt cop is an openly for-profit private "security force" paid for by and therefore OFFICIALLY beholden to the rich and their interests above all.
I think you're trying to frame this in a Western or American context - it really doesn't apply here.
You're thinking only the rich have security, you can drive to some of the poorest areas in SA and you'll see local residents utilising private security.
It's not that these institutions are not working - they are NON EXISTENT. Imagine if the police simply stopped working, not barely functioning, I mean literally completely non-functional.
And it's not just the police force, it's electricity, water, sanitation, education, healthcare, almost every sector is either borderline non-functioning or completely non-functioning.
I think you're trying to frame this in a Western or American context
No, I'm framing it in a "rich people look out for themselves. That's how they became rich" context that's true worldwide.
You're thinking only the rich have security, you can drive to some of the poorest areas in SA and you'll see local residents utilising private security.
No, I'm saying that since the rich are the ones paying, the rest only get security if it pits the interests of the rich people. That poor people's interest sometimes align with that by happenstance doesn't make rich people de facto owning the police a good idea. Especially not when the rich people themselves are committing crimes.
I really don't understand why you're trying so hard to frame this in a rich versus poor issue.
In South Africa you can go to the middle of gangland which is easy to find because crime is so rampant, and you'll find security companies whose residents are their customers not some rich person whose decided to fund security for poor people.
I don't think you understand how serious crime is here that everyone no matter the wealth class is being affected to such a degree that private security companies in both rich and poor areas are the only effective combat against the wave of terror.
Even public sector versions that ARENT working would be a much better situation. The only thing worse than a secretly corrupt cop is an openly for-profit private "security force" paid for by and therefore OFFICIALLY beholden to the rich and their interests above all.
I think you're trying to frame this in a Western or American context - it really doesn't apply here.
You're thinking only the rich have security, you can drive to some of the poorest areas in SA and you'll see local residents utilising private security.
It's not that these institutions are not working - they are NON EXISTENT. Imagine if the police simply stopped working, not barely functioning, I mean literally completely non-functional.
And it's not just the police force, it's electricity, water, sanitation, education, healthcare, almost every sector is either borderline non-functioning or completely non-functioning.
No, I'm framing it in a "rich people look out for themselves. That's how they became rich" context that's true worldwide.
No, I'm saying that since the rich are the ones paying, the rest only get security if it pits the interests of the rich people. That poor people's interest sometimes align with that by happenstance doesn't make rich people de facto owning the police a good idea. Especially not when the rich people themselves are committing crimes.
I really don't understand why you're trying so hard to frame this in a rich versus poor issue.
In South Africa you can go to the middle of gangland which is easy to find because crime is so rampant, and you'll find security companies whose residents are their customers not some rich person whose decided to fund security for poor people.
I don't think you understand how serious crime is here that everyone no matter the wealth class is being affected to such a degree that private security companies in both rich and poor areas are the only effective combat against the wave of terror.