Where Do Cops Come From?...or...Why I do not support "private" cops.

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
117,642
Home run Eric, home run.

Said it better than I have been able to, in years of trying now.

Throw it in the woods, indeed...



Where Do Cops Come From?

May 24, 2013

By eric

http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/05/24/where-do-cops-come-from/

Ever wonder how come there are men (and women) in costumes “policing” the rest of us?

Most people accept this relationship as both given – and eternal. That there have always been men (if not always women) in costumes “policing” the rest of us. But, in fact, it’s a relatively novel thing. Think back to your schooldays. Do you recall any mention of police when you were learning about the colonial era and the American Revolution? There were sheriffs, yes – and the local militia. But these were concerned mostly with keeping the peace – that is, stepping in when someone harmed someone else. Up to and even during the Civil War – a titanic struggle between the fading remnants of the old republican idea and the centralized, omnipotent state that took its place – the idea of police as we know it was essentially unknown.

It is a modern concept – one developed out of the company town idea.

You may or may not recall the company town. It is a place – once upon a time, a very real place – in which the company not only employs nearly everyone but also controls nearly everyone. During work hours and – most relevant in terms of the discussion at hand – the rest of the time, too. This is achieved by paying the workers not in specie, but in “script” or tin coinage or some other form of fiat currency issued by the company – and good at the company stores in the company town where all the company workers live. Even the worker’s homes are company homes. In the company town, everything you did was the company’s business. And to keep it all nicely organized, there were company police.

Sound familiar?

Examples of these paternalistic – and authoritarian – “communities” include Bournville (see here) founded by Cadbury Chocolate King George Cadbury – which was gently paternalistic. And also the less gently paternalistic Pullman, Chicago. You may recall the Pullman Railroad strike of 1894 – which got ugly, quickly. The cattle – oops, Pullman workers – had become recalcitrant.

They were more firmly dealt with.

Often, they were dealt with by badged and costumed goons hired by the men who owned the company town. For example, the infamous Pinkertons – “pinks,” as they were once called.

Shortly after the not-so-Civil War, founder Allan Pinkerton expanded his band of head-crackers into the largest private law enforcement organization in the world – with more “agents” than there were soldiers in the U.S. Army at the time. Andrew Carnegie and other corporatists used the “pinks” to keep the cattle in line.

But, there was a problem.

The cattle were still free range. They could leave the company town – or the crowded city – and go somewhere beyond the reach of costumed enforcers. America – even post Civil War – was not yet a consolidated corporate entity. One could still live relatively free. But it was only a temporary reprieve – one based almost entirely on remoteness from the clutches of the octopus and its costumed enforcers, i.e., the police.

It would not be long before America – the entire continental United-at-gunpoint-States – became one singular, insufferable, inescapable company town. One in which rights no longer existed. Only privileges – which could be rescinded at any time, for any reason. Because now, everyone was “on the clock,” 24-7.

Post not-so-Civil War, the federal leviathan that squatted in DC looked upon the Pinkerton model and smiled. An army – literally, with military grades as well as military-style uniforms and the military attitude to go with it – was just what was needed to maintain “order” in the biggest company town the world had yet seen.

But, some light cosmetic retouching was in order. It would not do, from the standpoint of public relations, to have private (that is, corporate) law enforcers. These would have to be transformed into public servants and – just like that – Americans fell under the total authority of the police. A standing army of enforcers from whom there is no escape – and little recourse.

Today, most Americans accept, without question, the company town ideal and the enforcers that go along with it. The former distinctions between a private army of goons – and an army of goons styled “public servants” have been effaced. People not only no longer chafe at being ordered around by buzz-cut barking goons – they have been conditioned to revere their tormenters as selfless heroes working ever-so-hard to “protect” them!

The transformation – and consolidation of absolute power – is both astonishing and fearful.

In a company town, one could at least leave – and one could still lawfully defend oneself against an assault by a company goon. Even that is now denied us. To resist in any way – even if the costumed enforcer is acting illegally – is itself illegal. For example, the courts have ruled that a homeowner may not – legally – use force to defend his home or himself against a costumed enforcer who forces his way into the home, even if the break-in is utterly illegal. We are expected – required – to go limp, roll over, present our bellies and trust to the good offices of the “officer” that we won’t get kicked.

Or worse.

“Police” have become a class of persons immune from the normal rules of civilized human interaction. Almost a sacred priesthood. And we are expected to play the role of humble supplicant – thanking them for their “service.”

Somewhere, far below, Alan Pinkerton is looking upward – and smiling.
 
The first 'modern' police originated in England where the communities or 'shires' had a reeve or chief watchman. This became, what we know of today, as the sheriff—or shire-reeve.

Fast forwarding to colonial America, people also took turns standing watch under a 'shire reeve'. Police forces were always supposed to be just regular people taking turns keeping the peace under the direction of an elected sheriff.

We still have this to an extent when sheriffs form posses and volunteer forces; however, it is now an out of control gang with little to no accountability. When you have a police force that is not under the control of an elected official making everyone bow down, you have a standing army.
 
I imagine a private police officer whatever would have to respect property rights unlike cops today who are protected under the state.
Private "police" are still Police.
The very concept is Authoritarian. The Polar opposite of Liberty.
It should not exist in a free society. in any form. Period.
The very concept that people need to be controlled,, and that unnatural laws need to be enforced is offensive.

A free people are capable of policing themselves. Police should not exist.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
 
I imagine a private police officer whatever would have to respect property rights unlike cops today who are protected under the state.

True. If the general public wouldn't accept them to be aboth the law (since they all knew they are just another private organization) private competition could arise to deal with this security agency, should they violate property rights. Unlike the current monopoly system where the police can do pretty much whatever they want to.
 
I think some of us are defining "Police" different than others. A police force, strictly speaking, enforces the law. Whether that's good or bad depends on what the laws are.
 
I think some of us are defining "Police" different than others. A police force, strictly speaking, enforces the law. Whether that's good or bad depends on what the laws are.
It (the concept) should not exist in a free society. It is only necessary in an Authoritarian society.

Read the link I gave. Please.
the very concept of police is anti-liberty.
 
It (the concept) should not exist in a free society. It is only necessary in an Authoritarian society.

Read the link I gave. Please.
the very concept of police is anti-liberty.

What's wrong with other people enforcing property rights for you, in a free society? Is every form of private security agency illegitimate to you?

I agree that they should have no special privileges and be under the same rule of law as everybody else. But if they are basically just private citizens whose job it happens to be to protect private property (and paid for by people demanding their services, not with money they themselves steal), I don't see a problem with that.

If you have the right to protect your own property, you also have the right to delegate that right to someone else.
 
Private "police" are still Police.
The very concept is Authoritarian. The Polar opposite of Liberty.
It should not exist in a free society. in any form. Period.
The very concept that people need to be controlled,, and that unnatural laws need to be enforced is offensive.

A free people are capable of policing themselves. Police should not exist.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Exactly! Put the power back in the hands of the people and a duly elected sheriff. Now about private security, that's fine because they are agents who work for you... enforcing your rules on your property in addition to providing safety and security. However, asserting power of others outside of private property is something very serious.
 
Last edited:
paul_blart_mall_cop_ver2.jpg
 
Exactly! Put the power back in the hands of the people and a duly elected sheriff. Now about private security, that's fine because they are agents who work for you... enforcing your rules on your property in addition to providing safety and security. However, asserting power of others outside of private property is something very serious.

That's why nobody should be allowed to assert power of others, period.
 
What's wrong with other people enforcing property rights for you, in a free society? Is every form of private security agency illegitimate to you?

I agree that they should have no special privileges and be under the same rule of law as everybody else. But if they are basically just private citizens whose job it happens to be to protect private property (and paid for by people demanding their services, not with money they themselves steal), I don't see a problem with that.

If you have the right to protect your own property, you also have the right to delegate that right to someone else.

Private security is fine. Private security has no power outside of strictly defined bounds of YOUR property.
Private security has no legitimate ability to fuck with anyone else outside those defined limits and have no legal powers outside that specifically defined location.
Private security is NOT police. It is private security.
 
Private "police" are still Police.
The very concept is Authoritarian. The Polar opposite of Liberty.
It should not exist in a free society. in any form. Period.
The very concept that people need to be controlled,, and that unnatural laws need to be enforced is offensive.

A free people are capable of policing themselves. Police should not exist.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

How is a private police on private property authoritarian? Are homeowners not private police while on their property?
 
That's why nobody should be allowed to assert power of others, period.

Well, outside of your house (your property), yes; however, I believe that someone's property is his/her castle and those who venture such venue are subject to that person's rules.
 
How is a private police on private property authoritarian? Are homeowners not private police while on their property?

Then everyone is police. Which is NOT what we are talking about.
Did you read the link I posted (have posted several times)??
It is not hard to click on,, nor is it a difficult read.

And it is from the Constitution Society,, not some questionable source.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.
The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement. Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding. Early constitutions enunciated the intention that law enforcement was a universal duty that each person owed to the community, rather than a power of the government. Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.
 
Private security is fine. Private security has no power outside of strictly defined bounds of YOUR property.
Private security has no legitimate ability to fuck with anyone else outside those defined limits and have no legal powers outside that specifically defined location.
Private security is NOT police. It is private security.

Maybe it's a problem of definitions. When some anarcho-capitalists talk about "private police" they surely don't mean to give some group of people special authority over the rest of the population. What they generally mean is private security/private rights enforcement agencies (and they also usually call it that way).

The only difference to current private security firms, in an environment absent a government police force, would be that they would also enforce compensation, etc. If there is probable cause that you did something than there would be some system in place that allowed them to enter your property and drag you into a court room or seize your property after you are convicted of a crime and refuse to pay compensation. But they would have no special privilege to be allowed to do that. Everybody should in theory be able to enforce their rights (it would just be way to dangerous for most people and better left to people who specialize in this area).

And while that's surely a delicate issue, there has to be some mechanism like that one in place. You can't just go ahead and steal, defraud and shoot people and than hide on your own property, without anyone ever being able to enter (or only by putting their own lifes at risk). Of course that's problematic and requires a well thought-out system, but the same problems arise with a government run police force, enforcing court decisions.
 
Back
Top