Are you in favor of abolishing the police?

[Brett85]

I think he is just trying to prove that RPF is full of crazy anarchists.

Well, it's just one way of trying to see what the anarchist/minarchist divide is here on these forums. Although there are some people who support abolishing the police who say they aren't anarchists, such as Pcosmar. I'm not trying to bash anarchists in this thread, but just get a better idea of what the anarchist/minarchist divide is here on these forums. It's just for fun.

 

[Brett85]

I really can't answer your question because I am both for and against abolishing police. It just depends on what level of government that police has jurisdiction over. For national police, yes, I am for abolishing it. For local/state police, I am against abolishing it. Police are useful because I can't guard my home and possessions all day while I am away at work. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with deputizing law enforcement, on a local or state level, with the task of maintaining order and upholding laws that protect life and property. The police should not have a "monopoly" on protection services, but still, they can serve and protect in the public's trust.

Then you should answer "no," because I clarified that I was referring to government police at all levels; federal, state, and local. If you think the government police should exist at the state and local levels, then you should answer "no."

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well, it's just one way of trying to see what the anarchist/minarchist divide is here on these forums. Although there are some people who support abolishing the police who say they aren't anarchists, such as Pcosmar. I'm not trying to bash anarchists in this thread, but just get a better idea of what the anarchist/minarchist divide is here on these forums. It's just for fun.

There are also some people who are ancaps but just refuse to use the term for some reason, like erowe1

There are also some people here who aren't anarchists or minarchists.

 

[Brett85]

So in order to make sure that there are no police the state would have to ban them. But then how would they enforce the ban on police if people tried to hire police anyway?

Then change the wording of my question to, "should there be any government funding of the government police at any level of government?"

 

[erowe1]

Then change the wording of my question to, "should there be any government funding of the government police at any level of government?"

I'd still say yes there should, as long as it's only voluntary.

 

[Brett85]

Having no government funding of police at any level would be how the police would be "abolished."

 

[Brett85]

I'd still say yes there should, as long as it's only voluntary.

You mean there should be government police as long as people donate their own money to the government to fund it, rather than forcing them to fund it through taxes?

 

[erowe1]

Having no government funding of police at any level would be how the police would be "abolished."

I would say that if anybody is funding any police by any means whatsoever, that would count as "government funding."

But how would you abolish it without banning people from funding police? And how would you enforce a ban like that if you did ban it?

 

[donnay]

I am as well, but local forces can be controlled if they are accountable to a small number of people. When federal or state funds start flowing their way, though, we are all in trouble. I'd like to abolish all forces that receive federal or state funds.

Then allow the Constitutional Sheriff and deputies in each state. No Federal funds for militarizing police to circumvent the1878 Posse Comitatus Act.

 

[erowe1]

You mean there should be government police as long as people donate their own money to the government to fund it, rather than forcing them to fund it through taxes?

The term "government police" seems redundant to me. But yes, whatever police there are should never be funded with any kind of involuntary tax.

 

[donnay]

Well, it's just one way of trying to see what the anarchist/minarchist divide is here on these forums. Although there are some people who support abolishing the police who say they aren't anarchists, such as Pcosmar. I'm not trying to bash anarchists in this thread, but just get a better idea of what the anarchist/minarchist divide is here on these forums. It's just for fun.

I am not an anarchist. I want the militarized police abolished.

 

[dinosaur]

Then allow the Constitutional Sheriff and deputies in each state. No Federal funds for militarizing police to circumvent the1878 Posse Comitatus Act.

Agree

 

[Brett85]

I am not an anarchist. I want the militarized police abolished.

My question didn't refer to "militarized police," just police. From what you're saying it sounds like you're more in favor of reforming the police than abolishing them.

 

[Brett85]

I would say that if anybody is funding any police by any means whatsoever, that would count as "government funding."

But how would you abolish it without banning people from funding police? And how would you enforce a ban like that if you did ban it?

I'm not exactly sure how to answer that. I thought I was asking a simple question. I guess nothing is ever simple here.

 

[donnay]

My question didn't refer to "militarized police," just police. From what you're saying it sounds like you're more in favor of reforming the police than abolishing them.

But our police across the county are militarized. Or have you not been paying attention. Bear Cats and other military armored vehicles ordered in small towns across the country. Fusions Centers in each state. Police using combat gear everyday. Ammunition stockpiles being ordered. Circumventing the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act was easy enough, while everyone was sleeping.

 

[Brett85]

But that does kind of raise an interesting question. How would you enforce a ban on all government in a society with no government? What would stop a group of people from getting together and starting a new government?

 

[Brett85]

But our police across the county are militarized. Or have you not been paying attention. Bear Cats and other military armored vehicles ordered in small towns across the country. Fusions Centers in each state. Police using combat gear everyday. Ammunition stockpiles being ordered. Circumventing the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act was easy enough, while everyone was sleeping.

Then why not just do away with the militarized police and just have regular police? Your answer to the poll question implies that you oppose having any kind of government police, "militarized" or not.

 

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

I assume by "Police" you mean a state-run monopoly organization, and are not necessarily referring to competing police agencies like Rothbard supported, voluntarily hired peace officers/neighborhood watchmen, or other free market solutions like that. In that case, I'd answer "Yes."

I personally don't find the anarchy/minarchy debate ......

Please don't equate "no standing armies" to "anarchism".

Even though a permanently armed government was opposed in America for centuries and government police were unknown in America until the mid-19th century, this was not anarcho-anything--it was traditional conservative constitutional government. This point seems to be hard for a lot of people to understand: George Mason, Patrick Henry, and the best of the founders weren't anarchists (not that there's anything wrong with that) just because they were against militarization of the government and reserved the right of bearing arms on a permanent basis to the people.

The question really should be: Do you support upholding the ancient traditional conservative principle of a non-militarized government or are you a radical liberal who thinks that that's too old fashioned and times have changed and nowadays your local sheriff needs tanks and shock troops?

 

[Christian Liberty]

But that does kind of raise an interesting question. How would you enforce a ban on all government in a society with no government? What would stop a group of people from getting together and starting a new government?

This isn't really a simple question either.

"government" means a lot of different things, and is sometimes voluntary. My church has a government, for instance. By this definition, anarchists wouldn't want to ban government. Why can't people voluntarily band together in a mutually beneficial fashion?

I think what you really want to know is how anarchists would stop the creation of the STATE.

There's still no real answer to that. If enough people wanted a State, and were motivated to create one, they would do so. If enough people want tyranny they'll get it, no matter what you start with. Neither Constitutionalism nor Anarchism can "work" without a critical mass of people who support them. Not necessarily a majority, but at least a sufficiently active minority.

This is why I really think education is more important than politics.

The term "government police" seems redundant to me. But yes, whatever police there are should never be funded with any kind of involuntary tax.

I'd define "government police" as a group of police with a legally protected monopoly on policing. So I'd say Ayn Rand did support "government police" despite the fact that she wanted to have them paid for by user fees, because she still wanted a ban on competing police forces. I would not say Rothbard supports "government police." The funding being voluntary is important, but much, much more important is the legality of competition.

 

[Brett85]

Please don't equate "no standing armies" to "anarchism".

Even though a permanently armed government was opposed in America for centuries and government police were unknown in America until the mid-19th century, this was not anarcho-anything--it was traditional conservative constitutional government. This point seems to be hard for a lot of people to understand: George Mason, Patrick Henry, and the best of the founders weren't anarchists (not that there's anything wrong with that) just because they were against militarization of the government and reserved the right of bearing arms on a permanent basis to the people.

The question really should be: Do you support upholding the ancient traditional conservative principle of a non-militarized government or are you a radical liberal who thinks that that's too old fashioned and times have changed and nowadays your local sheriff needs tanks and shock troops?

We may not have had a police when our founders were around, but that doesn't mean that they were opposed to the concept of having a police. It just wasn't necessary back then when the population of the U.S was so small. It's absolutely necessary in a country of 300 million people. But there's no evidence that our founders actually opposed the concept of a police force; it simply wasn't needed at the time. But if the founding fathers were so opposed to having a government police force, you would think they would've included a prohibition on that as part of the Bill of Rights, but they didn't.