If you’re going to defund the police, you had better have an alternative security force set up in your neighbourhood. Safety is not a free good.
The most immediate answer that many people will give is that this shows the failure of the police, but I think that this overlooks a much more important issue. I do not believe that the police are failing. We think of the police as “security” forces—we are all familiar with their maxim “To Serve and Protect”—but as I’ve detailed elsewhere, the police are not security forces. They are law enforcement organizations, and this distinction is important. The Supreme Court has ruled in multiple cases that the police have no duty to protect you. The job of the police, as SCOTUS has affirmed in judicial rulings, is only to enforce the law. That may be the enforcement of legitimate laws (such as the law against murder), but police are obligated to enforce laws regardless of their moral legitimacy. This is why we find stories of police shutting down lemonade stands or arresting people for being out of their homes after 6 p.m., as they are currently doing in many cities that have imposed curfews.What If We Didn’t Have Police at All? by Chris Calton
The police have no duty to protect you.
As even the figment of police protection starts to fray in the West, you will have to arrange your own local security.
In a world of constrained resources, the more laws against nonviolent activity there are, the less common it becomes for the police to actually enforce valid laws, such as those designed to protect against violent and property crimes. This effect is amplified by the perverse incentives created by laws that enforce fines and allow police to confiscate property, which make the enforcement of laws against victimless crimes more profitable for state governments and local police than the enforcement of laws against violent crime.
These observations should compel us to accept certain conclusions. On the one hand, if police are security forces, they have failed abysmally compared to private alternatives to combatting crime. If they are, as I contend, a separate industry entirely—the law enforcement industry—they are unnecessary, dangerous, and destructive, especially as laws expand into all areas of private life. When people call to “privatize the police,” they usually mean “privatize security” rather than the privatization of law enforcement (though this occurs as well, as when municipalities contract policing services out to private companies, always with better results than we see with public police forces). But if security is the goal, we already have private security—though expensive public policing crowds out and even legally prohibits many private methods of combatting crime. With this in mind, there should be no reason not to call for abolishing the institution of the police entirely. Rather than seeing cities erupt in violent chaos (as we are seeing now), the abolition of police forces will merely remove the most powerful organization that creates violence in cities and free up resources that people can use toward goods and services that actually serve and protect.What If We Didn’t Have Police at All? by Chris Calton
More freedom, and a greater ability to redirect resources to what actually provides security — as opposed to merely “gathering more power in trustworthy hands” — is a good thing.
But to do it right, it’s going to take work, planning, and lots and lots of neighbourhood meetings, formal and informal. Just pulling the plug and leaving the void will have really nasty effects.
In the end, we are dealing with similar belief systems that don’t have anything but blind faith in the systems as an authority. On the right, the police protect society, because, well, that is what people believe and even if it is not true, they believe it anyway: the police protect all of us from violent people, and if they are disbanded, society will degenerate into lawless chaos. That police forces have evolved into insular and autonomous entities that have become a law unto themselves does not seem to take root in at least some conservative thinking.
On the progressive left, there is the unending belief in the therapeutic state. If there is a role for official policing, it is to aid in the fight against capitalism and bigotry. Thus, the left-wing district attorney in San Francisco, Chesa Boudin, can declare that his office will concentrate its efforts on prosecuting landlords who, in his view, constitute a criminal class. Democratic politicians such as Beto O’Rourke can call for unleashing the tax police upon religious groups that do not adhere to the Left’s sexual orthodoxy. So, those on the left who might call for abolishment of the police still want government to have at least some police powers to go after people they don’t like.Abolishing the Police Won’t Mean Abolishing State Violence by William L. Anderson
Various flavours of power-worship.
What a drag.
For example, when the rioting and looting in US cities was at its height, Bernie Sanders declared that business owners have been “looting” the poor for forty years which would seem to be a backhanded endorsement of the violence and theft taking place, or, at the very least, a justification for the looting and burning. Again, because Sanders and his followers view business activity as violent theft and government action as either peaceful or promoting peace, there would be no reason in their minds to have police protect private property or its owners, since “property is theft.” (One doubts that Sanders believes that about his own three houses and his other personal property, but socialists have lived with that disconnect for years and always get away with it.)Abolishing the Police Won’t Mean Abolishing State Violence by William L. Anderson
The Press is always careful to only ask the right sort of questions, at the right time, to the right people.
“Truth is not the point. Logic is not the point. Power is the point.“
Well, after the businesses have been destroyed, the masses can get the poverty they have chosen, under the Red Star Aristocrats they admire.
Same old same old.
Places that actually see private enterprise and private property as a good thing, as something that is socially beneficial, actually can get along well without the practically autonomous police agencies. Unfortunately, it seems that on both the local and national levels, demands for more confiscation and coercion seem to be directed into a predatory philosophy of governance.Abolishing the Police Won’t Mean Abolishing State Violence by William L. Anderson
This isn’t 1930, much to the sorrow of the Collectivists.
This is an era of decentralization: things tend to fall apart, over time.
Good news for Christians who don’t look up to Our Leaders and Men with Uniforms for salvation. (A minority among conservatives? Yes, but they do exist.)
They will be able to hook up with like-minded people in their county, protect each other, and build wealth together.
It starts, not with politics — “Politics Fourth!” — but by pulling your children out of the public schools and teaching them to think for themselves, instead of Pavolvian dogs.
It is easy to call Americans a nation of sheep. We are not a nation of sheep. We are a nation of Pavlovian dogs.
Large, dangerous dogs can be trained if the trainer starts early enough. There has to be a system of training. There has to be a system of sanctions. There are rewards. There are punishments. Over time, an efficient trainer can get dogs to do his bidding.
The smarter trainers are called dog whisperers. There are plenty of these people. The public schools are run by them. They ring bells. From the day that students begin to specialize in their educations, and potentially are smarter than the classroom teachers in at least one field, the schools impose a system of bells. The students move from class to class according to the bells. They are trained to get up from their desks, grab their books, and move to another classroom. This is conveyor-belt education. It works. It breaks down resistance. Students learn to move rapidly between classes. The bells command them.
This is Pavlovian education. Why would anyone imagine that it isn’t? I’ll tell you why: because they consent to it. They pay the taxes to fund it. They send their children into it. They do not complain because they have been trained by the system not to complain. They cannot imagine education apart from this system of bell-ringing.
Gatto’s book describes the system. It was designed to train low-productivity workers for big business. It created in them an inherent obedience to a system of bells and whistles.
That’s the key to understanding American politics. The state can buy compliance for as long as it can afford to send out the checks. That is the lesson of lockdowns.
The state doesn’t use the bells. It uses monthly checks. The dogs will respond as trained until the checks stop coming. No more treats => no more rolling over.The Conspiracy Behind the Lockdowns, by Gary North
With the accelerated pace to bankruptcy, it is very likely that anyone 60 years or younger will live to see the day when the checks stop coming… and people 50 years or younger will never even get those old age pensions or ‘free’ medical care packages.
When the cheques stop going to the ghettos, obedience will end. Bankrupted local governments will defund the police in poor areas: fairly predictable consequences will ensure.
The cheques will stop coming to the middle class, a few years after they stop going to the ghettos. (It could take as long as a decade, but I doubt it.) Coupled with greater unemployment, the white middle classes will stop being submissive to Their Betters. Consequences here are not as predictable, but consequences there will be.
No more treats? No more tricks.
But lots of snarling, from lots of increasingly hungry packs, rapidly growing in numbers.
“Forewarned is forearmed.”