Are you in favor of abolishing the police?

[thoughtomator]

I'm not sure I am entirely on board with abandoning the idea of police entirely, but I am all for ditching the summary-executions-and-revenue-generation model of policing. Actual Peace Officers, whose job is to keep the peace, and not to exercise authority, would be worth a go.

 

[donnay]

who's Andy Taylor? I was thinking Andy Griffith...

Yes. Fictitious Sheriff of Mayberry.

 

[69360]

Yes the firefighters were federalized too. Yes, this hijacked federal government knew what it was doing--entice the people with money and they will do whatever it takes to keep it coming. Welfare/warfare state.

I just don't see how you could service large cities with millions of people with volunteer police and firefighters. It's just not practical. How would there be enough people available during weekday 9-5 when a majority are at their jobs? Or midnight to 6 when most sleep? Volunteer fire companies and first aid squads struggle to staff those hours.


I think just about everyone here is against militarized police with tanks, mraps, swat etc. But I think no police at all only works in a libertarian fantasy world. A sheriff with volunteer deputies isn't going to cut it to maintain some semblance of law and order in densely populated areas.

 

[Cheimei]

I voted no. Those that are advocating we stick with the traditional idea of a police force are thinking wrong. If roads were privatized, those that owned the roads would be responsible for providing a security force. If a murder (or something) occurred on their land, they would be held liable for it being on their land and not having an adequate security force; that would be the incentive to provide a security force. Those that own the road could also provide a contractual service to prevent crimes on your property while you're away (for example, in a neighborhood), or you could hire security for your property if it's too big (i.e., rural land).

It'd be dangerous to think that police could be trusted at your home while you're away. You can't have both property rights and a police force that is allowed to trespass on your property even to catch a criminal. I wouldn't be alright with this.

I don't have anyone who has influenced me in these thoughts: these are things that I have thought of on my own. Of course, these ideas also require free markets, a functioning economy and citizens who would be willing to privatize roads.

 

[69360]

I voted no. Those that are advocating we stick with the traditional idea of a police force are thinking wrong. If roads were privatized, those that owned the roads would be responsible for providing a security force. If a murder (or something) occurred on their land, they would be held liable for it being on their land and not having an adequate security force; that would be the incentive to provide a security force. Those that own the road could also provide a contractual service to prevent crimes on your property while you're away (for example, in a neighborhood), or you could hire security for your property if it's too big (i.e., rural land).

It'd be dangerous to think that police could be trusted at your home while you're away. You can't have both property rights and a police force that is allowed to trespass on your property even to catch a criminal. I wouldn't be alright with this.

I don't have anyone who has influenced me in these thoughts: these are things that I have thought of on my own. Of course, these ideas also require free markets, a functioning economy and citizens who would be willing to privatize roads.

Yes thousands of individual security forces accountable to nobody with differing rules of engagement has worked oh so well throughout recorded history. We have enough trouble with holding what we have accountable and you want to divide that up and make it make it many thousandfold times worse?

 

[donnay]

I just don't see how you could service large cities with millions of people with volunteer police and firefighters. It's just not practical. How would there be enough people available during weekday 9-5 when a majority are at their jobs? Or midnight to 6 when most sleep? Volunteer fire companies and first aid squads struggle to staff those hours.


I think just about everyone here is against militarized police with tanks, mraps, swat etc. But I think no police at all only works in a libertarian fantasy world. A sheriff with volunteer deputies isn't going to cut it to maintain some semblance of law and order in densely populated areas.

You are also have to take into consideration; large cities where people are not allowed to exercise their second amendment right either. These people are sitting ducks for criminals and they know it!

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Anybody remember that Andy Griffith episode where Andy is away and Barney is in charge? Andy comes back to find that Barney has thrown half the town in jail. It's a pretty hilarious episode, but also ominous in a funny way too. It's ironic today how the police--and not our populace--are the ones that are out of order.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You are also have to take into consideration; large cities where people are not allowed to exercise their second amendment right either. These people are sitting ducks for criminals and they know it!

I wonder how many DC residents were burglarized, beaten, or killed because they had to disassemble their shotgun in their own home.

 

[Ender]

You are also have to take into consideration; large cities where people are not allowed to exercise their second amendment right either. These people are sitting ducks for criminals and they know it!

"An armed society is a polite society."

-Robert A. Heinlein-

 

[BuddyRey]

Sometimes it's fun to pretend there are special costumes and signets that grant people crazy superpowers, but adults should know better than to run their politics according to games of make-believe.

 

[Cheimei]

Yes thousands of individual security forces accountable to nobody with differing rules of engagement has worked oh so well throughout recorded history.

We have enough trouble with holding what we have accountable and you want to divide that up and make it make it many thousandfold times worse?

Wait, am I missing something? Could you not take the company to court?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes thousands of individual security forces accountable to nobody with differing rules of engagement has worked oh so well throughout recorded history. We have enough trouble with holding what we have accountable and you want to divide that up and make it make it many thousandfold times worse?

Divide what up? You only vote for one Sheriff.

 

[69360]

Wait, am I missing something? Could you not take the company to court?

Good luck with that. Figure out who to sue, how and exactly what to sue for, pay ridiculous legal fees and hope the court finds in your favor. How practical is that every time you have a complaint? You really want to sue blackwater for shooting Grandma because she stepped over the property line?

Divide what up? You only vote for one Sheriff.

He was advocating everyone hire their own private security.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes thousands of individual security forces accountable to nobody with differing rules of engagement has worked oh so well throughout recorded history. We have enough trouble with holding what we have accountable and you want to divide that up and make it make it many thousandfold times worse?

You're confusing "security" and "police". "Security" personnel stay on the property they are paid to keep secure. "Police" are a wandering standing army (gang) of thugs accountable to nobody.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Sometimes it's fun to pretend there are special costumes and signets that grant people crazy superpowers, but adults should know better than to run their politics according to games of make-believe.

Thus, every adult should be an anarchist. If only

 

[69360]

You're confusing "security" and "police". "Security" personnel stay on the property they are paid to keep secure. "Police" are a wandering standing army (gang) of thugs accountable to nobody.

You didn't read the post I quoted, he wanted private security forces for every roadway. How in the world would that be practical?

 

[Cabal]

You didn't read the post I quoted, he wanted private security forces for every roadway. How in the world would that be practical?

Similar to how gated communities have rent-a-cops, or their own private neighborhood security; or similar to how retail chains, hotels, and all sorts of private businesses have their own security in their various locations; or similar to privatized security services that are now operating in Detroit.

 

[Antischism]

Having a third-party or state-sponsored police force runs contrary to the idea of anarchism. Rothbard was wrong when he made the claim that private police and anarchy were compatible. Actually, he tends to argue for private statism. A Henry Ford-esque small army of private police would be hierarchical and impose their force upon others more aggressively if need be, simply by the power of monetary influence from the highest bidder. Private wealth would simply control the private police and courts with capital. It's basically an army for hire with a vested interest in protecting the wealthy and ignoring those too poor to afford their services. It's a situation where having more money means you're more likely to get away with murder, figuratively speaking.

The ideal solution would be for average people to look after one another in communities. I know some anarchists would argue for a militia like the individualist types formed in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, but I don't believe that's the right course. The only type of authority that's valid in anarchism is natural authority. For example, natural authority would be the wisdom of a well-read, well-studied person who is an authority on a topic. It could be a church leader or a scientist you admire. It's an authority that comes with experience and comes from within, not derived from law or coercive in any way. However, natural authority can indeed become illegitimate authority if it's no longer voluntary and becomes coercive.

 

[Origanalist]

Way late to the discussion, but yes. Hell yes.

 

[Cabal]

A Henry Ford-esque small army of private police would be hierarchical and impose their force upon others more aggressively if need be, simply by the power of monetary influence from the highest bidder. Private wealth would simply control the private police and courts with capital. It's basically an army for hire with a vested interest in protecting the wealthy and ignoring those too poor to afford their services. It's a situation where having more money means you're more likely to get away with murder, figuratively speaking.

These imaginary tycoons of yours must have endlessly deep pockets to be able to sustain such control. What exactly is the scenario here? The tycoon is forking out loads of cash to monopolize a security agency, and all competitors, and the passive masses continue to fund him so that he can oppress them via third party?

Of course, ideally there'd be no State, and thus the volatile market absent corporatism, coercive monopolization, barriers to entry, and other State interventions of this nature, on top of a rearmament of the citizenry, would make this whole hypothetical virtually impossible as far as I can tell. This is not to say that there wouldn't be a time needed for market experimentation and such, but it tends to be pretty good at satisfying demands even under such an interventionist State as we have now, so I can only assume its levels of efficiency and productivity, as well as its ability to satisfy demand would dramatically increase absent the State.

The real problem would be foreign States propping up dictators and warlords, like the US has been doing for decades. Then again, they might ultimately end up fucking themselves over a la USSR.