Not necessarily in the wealthiest areas
That you need to point this out illustrates my point: the private security armies are there to protect the people who pay them and their interests. If the boss has interests in a less wealthy area, that might be protected too. Maybe.
That's not law enforcement, that's an anarcho-capitalist nightmare!
you think Santa looks stupid
As someone who's not a fan of Christmas but IS a jolly fat man with a big beard (dark brown with gray in it, though, not white), that's not my FAVORITE reason...
So basically he wants an American version of the Iranian "Morality Police" torturing and killing people for not adhering to their archaic dogma.
And they thought "Y'all Quaeda" was a joke..
DNC 101: let 1992 thinking stand in the way of 2024 solutions to 2024 problems.
Stuck man! Put on the sled light!
Not the FASTEST way, but if you have a really powerful hairdryer I guess you might be able to reheat a few fries? 🤷😂
As long as they're aware of their privilege and don't abuse it, they're fine.
The most privileged tend to be the least aware and the first to exploit it though.
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.
Sure, let's replace the bastards with worse bastards that are only there for profit and would make less profit if crime were to go down! That'll fix it! 🤦
And my point is and has always been that any tiny advantage of misleading their readers like this is multifold overshadowed by the many negative consequences.
Even if they DIDN'T have a fixed amount set aside for making frivolous lawsuits go away (again, a publication the size of Forbes definitely do), the cost of having the lawyers draw up paperwork saying "fuck off, you don't have a case", only more professionally, is trivial to Forbes.
You can keep yammering on about how not saying "alleged" about a legal certainty would have them sued to bankruptcy all you want but that doesn't change the fact that it just isn't true.
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.