Re-thinking police departments

      In the wake of the mass civic protests over the horrifying death of George Floyd, many Americans are starting to re-think the very concept of police departments run by city governments.  The proposed reforms include words like "de-fund", "abolish", "fire them all", and other grandiose plans.

      Sad to say, however, is that Floyd's death is just the tip of the iceberg.  Every day, the news is full of accounts of citizens who are beaten, jailed, shot, tased, killed, falsely arrested, or have their property seized by aggressive, over-zealous police, often with flimsy or non-existing evidence.  As a Libertarian, I actively seek out these types of news articles, and let me tell you: they are shockingly plentiful. 

      Police misconduct and injustice is, of course, nothing new.  It occurs all over the world, and has happened for as long as governments have instituted organizations for the express purpose of enforcing the law.  What has changed, of course, is technology.  Every one of us has a video recorder in our pocket, and easy access to social media to broadcast it right away.  The police cannot get away with it as easily as they have in the past.

      Now to be fair, let me state that the vast majority of cops are decent, honest people who take their role as public protector seriously.  Being a cop ain't easy, and the thugs on the street all have a target on your back.  The rogue cops and bad-asses are the minority.  But all it takes is one bad apple to ruin public trust and respect for all.  And the fact is that police culture and politics has protected known bad-apples and kept them around long after they should have been fired.

Protect us from this guy!

      So what are the pros and cons of putting some political distance between government and law enforcement?  We libertarians have always maintained that law enforcement belongs within that very small, select group of entities that can be considered "legitimate" governmental functions.  (The others include military and civil judiciary.)  Note that there a lot of things that government presently attempts to do that are NOT in that small group such as:  transportation, education, retirement insurance, utilities, environmental preservation, currency, and so much more.  The ONLY legitimate functions are those directly related to protecting life and property from violence, theft, and fraud.  Every other human want and need can be provided by the free market at vastly lower costs and far better efficiency.

 

Private security

     But regarding those "legitimate" functions, it is important to point out that "legitimacy" does not necessarily imply "required", or "no alternatives considered".  The fact is that we already have free-market alternatives for those things.  Private security firms are plentiful everywhere, providing protection of people and property for their clients.  These businesses offer the same advantages that ANY free-market business provides.  The client pays them directly, and so the client can fire them any time he/she feels that their service is inferior.  Competition among the various firms rewards those who perform well and keep their costs low.  Consumers can choose the firm and the service "package" that best fits their needs and budget.

      And it's not just security.  There are private arbitration firms that will judicate disputes between parties - for a price - and generally do so much faster and with less muss and fuss than the governmental courts.  And as for the military - yes, there are quasi-military organizations that anyone can join.

      If law enforcement was not established by city government and paid for with city taxes, what might it look like?  Most likely, it would be established by neighborhoods, churches, civic organizations, and other smaller, more fluid organizations.  If schools, fire departments, streets, and emergency services were also separated from local and state governments, then the private organizations that assumed those functions could also be a law enforcement center.  It would be up to the individual entity to decide how best to pay for it.  Voluntarism, either in fees or in participation, is one option.  Insurance companies can get involved also: a homeowner who pays a "subscriber fee" to a private security firm could get an insurance discount.

      And of course, individuals themselves may skip hiring outsiders, and instead opt to protect their own castles.

      But however it is done, the most important thing is that those who PAY for the service, and those who actually PROVIDE the service, are much closer.  No city tax collectors, city councilman, or layer upon layer of bureaucracy stand between the citizen who wants safe streets, and the public servant who makes it so.  No hoping that the next election will fix the problems - if the hired party isn't up to the job, they're fired.  Today.  

      The word is "decentralize", and the more decentralized, the better.

      One very positive aspect of privately run police protection is that it would erode support for vice crime laws.  These laws attempt to ban actions such as prostitution, illegal drugs, pornography, and they are terribly ill-advised.  They are promoted by societal nannies and religious do-gooders who don't understand that what mutually-consenting adults do in private is not their concern.  Plus, it's a waste of scarce law enforcement resources, and only breeds contempt for the system.  But if police protection were paid out of one's OWN pocket instead of taxing "somebody else", it would tend to make one more frugal, and make the goal to promote peace and stability.

       Now to address the naysayers:

       First, the naysayers will claim that privately-funded law enforcement is just legalized vigilantism.  A vigilante is defined as someone who "takes the law into his/her own hands" and tries to administer justice without ascertaining that the accused really is guilty.  This objection is not valid, because the rule of law is still the rule of law: that an accused person is assumed innocent until proven otherwise.  Any person or organization who defies this basic principle is a lawbreaker, and shall be prosecuted.  Vigilantism really only rears its ugly head in the ABSENSE of a system of law and order and justice, and there is nothing inherent about decentralizing city police departments that suggests this.

      Then the naysayers will ask: what about the poor?  In our unequal society, only the rich could afford quality law enforcement, they say, and besides, protection from evil is a basic human right that should not depend on income! 

      The liberals and progressives have shed tears over their compassion for the poor throughout human history.  The common "solution" to inequity is wealth redistribution:  taking from those according to their ability, giving according to their need.  This, of course, punishes success and rewards failure - a great recipe for destroying a society's incentive to take care of itself.  And it also requires establishment of a powerful, all-controlling ruling class to decide who gets it, and who pays for it.

      If people need or want something, be it food, education, transportation, police protection, etc., then here is a better way:  treat people like adults and let them determine the best and most cost effective way to satisfy that need.  And that includes letting them keep their OWN money to pay for it.  But we've all been taught that the "proper" way to satisfy needs is for the government to tax our money away so that politicians and bureaucrats can spend it "correctly".  That is complete bull crap!  Government is NOT some all-knowing deity, and its employees are NOT inherently smarter or more frugal, especially when we're talking about spending someone ELSE'S money.  Besides, it has been proven countless times that the Free Market is THE most efficient way to provide goods and services that people need, and that bureaucratic socialism is the worst.  So when government-worshippers spend the poor's money for them, ostensibly for "their own good", it actually harms them in the long run.

      So, could this really happen?  Is it realistically possible that cities might re-think the concept of centralized, tax-supported police and emergency services, and opt for decentralized and neighborhood-run alternatives?  It's nice to hope so, but let's come back to reality:  neither Conservatives nor Liberals are likely to give up that much control.  Both major political groups' primary reason for living is to make government bigger and stronger (disregarding the fact the government already IS pretty darn big and strong).  Conservatives like government-run police forces so that they can enforce The Holy Word Of God and bring the masses to Jesus.  Liberals love government-run, tax-supported ANYTHING because it's "for your own good" and they're not likely to give up that idea anytime soon, never mind the growing body of evidence that their beloved city police departments are infected with vicious goons.

      Stay tuned, and let's seen what happens when the next horrific murder-by-tax-supported-cop gets caught on video.