WHAT GIVES WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THESE
DAYS?
Experiencing
the failure of centralized planning on a massive scale (in this case for the
area of police “protection”) Residents are arming themselves, getting guard
dogs, forming neighborhood watches and hiring others to help protect their home
or person to proactively mitigate crime. Good for them.
One
high-ranking official in the county legal system, speaking to a newspaper reporter which I will leave un-named and said
the rise in justifiable homicides mirrors a local court system that’s
increasingly lenient of the practice.
“It’s
a lot more acceptable now to get your own retribution,” the official said. “And
the justice system in the city is a lot more understanding if people do that.
It‘s becoming a part of the culture.”
That’s
not a stretch. The same write-up included this passage from a Detroit police
department employee: ‘It’s
not about police response time because often the act has already taken place by
the time the police are called,’ said Sgt. Eren Stephens of Detroit. She said
citizens have a right to defend themselves.
Should
we be surprised ? Not at all! If anything, we should be surprised that people
have put up with the current racket for so long.
Do
you want government providing your food, to handle the growing, harvesting,
processing, distribution and sale (or rationing)? Of course not – you know
they’d do a poor job. So why trust people working for a claimed monopoly, who
are subjected to the same perverse incentives, to supply “protection”?
How
hypocritical it is for supporters of policing today (who think competition is
untenable), to claim the need for police to protect people and property when
the police themselves exist solely on the wealth others have created. The very
foundation is based on violence. Every police salary paid or round of
ammunition purchased was bought with stolen money. This circular logic says it’s
ok for someone with a badge to steal from someone to “protect” them. Why does
an action – theft – become ok when the thief dons particular attire?
It
doesn’t. Fortunately that bad idea – that certain should be granted extra
authority based on their place of employment, is eroding.
What’s
becoming more commonplace in the world is just a harbinger of things to come
elsewhere. Governments will implode under their own bloat. More people will
withdraw their consent if not for moral qualms, because they find it in
interest to become more self-sufficient or reach a consensual interaction with
someone who has that comparative advantage to provide a certain good/service.
In
his 1849 essay, The Production of Security, Gustave de
Molinari proposed much the same. From a reviewer:
His
singular contribution, then, was to lead us away from the false assumption of
Hobbes that somehow the state was necessary to keep society from devolving into
chaos. On the contrary, argued Molinari, the voluntary society is the source of
order that comes from freedom itself. There is no contradiction or even tension
between liberty and security. If free enterprise works well in one sector, it
can work well in other sectors too.
Shouldn’t you have the choice how your money is spent? Wouldn’t you expect greater transparency and bang-for-your-buck if you yourself hired them and had the option to fire them? That’s what society could look like without a system sheltered from competition.
The Way I C IT...
IF POLICE OFFICERS RETURN ACTING LIKE THE TIMES WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT DID HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PUBLIC,
PERHAPS PEOPLE WILL BEGIN TO ACCEPT THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY HERE TO HELP RATHER THAN HURT AND TRUST WILL BE ESTABLISHED AGAIN.
