police officers - to be or not to be?

[wintermute]

On principal, would you encourage someone to enter the police force (U.S., U.K. or elsewhere)? Do libertarians even consider police necessary? If not, what means is there to keep order in a society plagued by violent, often mentally unstable, criminals?

 

What spawned this was "An Honest Conversation With A Police Officer" along with some research from other testimonies online. Police Officers are generally hated by the public they serve, they are forced to uphold ridiculous laws passed by corrupt politicians, and they are subjected to political liberalism in training and recruitment practices on a continual basis. On the other hand, police officers protect law abiding citizens from the increasingly dark and violent criminal underclass, honest police officers also act as a buffer against bad legislation passed by corrupt bureaucrats, and both of these functions become all the more critical in a sociopolitical crisis.

[Tyler H]

On principal, would you encourage someone to enter the police force (U.S., U.K. or elsewhere)? Why or why not?

 

I've listened to "An Honest Conversation With A Police Officer" and done some poking around elsewhere concerning the question of police officers, and most people with experience are painting a fairly grim picture. Officers are generally hated by the public they serve, they are forced to uphold ridiculous laws passed by corrupt politicians, and they are subjected to political liberalism in training and recruitment practices on a continual basis. On the other hand, police officers protect law abiding citizens from the increasingly dark and violent criminal underclass, honest police officers also act as a buffer against bad legislation passed by corrupt bureaucrats, and both of these functions become all the more critical in a sociopolitical crisis.

They will inevitably be violating the NAP.  If you want the good without the bad there are other options.  Check out this podcast from the Tom Woods show with Dale Brown, a threat management specialist.  Google some of the other options and present them to your friend - you may even think of something new yourself and create an amazing entrepreneurial opportunity.

[Will Torbald]

The only problem with police is how they are funded, not what their job is. Until society is ready for private police, antagonizing them without replacing them is only going to make things worse. It is also a good idea to have higher standards in training and in the people the hire. But the actual idea and concept of a police force is a good one.

[Tyler H]

The only problem with police is how they are funded, not what their job is. Until society is ready for private police, antagonizing them without replacing them is only going to make things worse. It is also a good idea to have higher standards in training and in the people the hire. But the actual idea and concept of a police force is a good one.

So kidnapping someone for possessing a plant is not a problem? Kidnapping for lying, conducting business without paying off the thugs, creating your own currency, using an unapproved currency, trading the wrong things with the wrong people, moving an animal from one area to another, paying for sex (unless it's on camera), etc, etc, etc.... not a problem?  The idea and concept of a police force that responds after a crime has been committed, profits from the existence and not the extinction of crime, and isn't bound in any way to actually protect you (Warren v. District of Columba) is a good one?  Maybe I misunderstood what you meant....

[Will Torbald]

So kidnapping someone for possessing a plant is not a problem? Kidnapping for lying, conducting business without paying off the thugs, creating your own currency, using an unapproved currency, trading the wrong things with the wrong people, moving an animal from one area to another, paying for sex (unless it's on camera), etc, etc, etc.... not a problem? The idea and concept of a police force that responds after a crime has been committed, profits from the existence and not the extinction of crime, and isn't bound in any way to actually protect you (Warren v. District of Columba) is a good one? Maybe I misunderstood what you meant....

The police don't make the laws. I was talking about the actual concept of a police at all, in the absolute. Whether the force becomes corrupted or not is another deal. However, the idea that police doesn't prevent crime just because it reacts is miscalculated. You can't see all the crimes that were prevented because of fear from the police. Proactive policing involves patrolling and profiling, but accusations of racism have made it very hard to do, and crime is going up because the policemen are scared of being labelled as racists, hence the Ferguson effect. You can see the spike in crime ever since in the statistics.

[Tyler H]

The police don't make the laws. I was talking about the actual concept of a police at all, in the absolute. Whether the force becomes corrupted or not is another deal. However, the idea that police doesn't prevent crime just because it reacts is miscalculated. You can't see all the crimes that were prevented because of fear from the police. Proactive policing involves patrolling and profiling, but accusations of racism have made it very hard to do, and crime is going up because the policemen are scared of being labelled as racists, hence the Ferguson effect. You can see the spike in crime ever since in the statistics.

. I see, good point about the unseen effect of a police presence preventing crime. So you mean police as in people we pay to protect us not as in the current form then?

[wintermute]

They will inevitably be violating the NAP.  If you want the good without the bad there are other options.  Check out this podcast from the Tom Woods show with Dale Brown, a threat management specialist.  Google some of the other options and present them to your friend - you may even think of something new yourself and create an amazing entrepreneurial opportunity.

 

I listened to the podcast and found the contrast between the objectives, techniques, and effectiveness of the Threat Management Center (a private security organization) versus the public-sector police services to be very eye-opening. This dovetails precisely with what Will said about the financial implementation of policing:

 

The only problem with police is how they are funded, not what their job is. Until society is ready for private police, antagonizing them without replacing them is only going to make things worse. It is also a good idea to have higher standards in training and in the people the hire. But the actual idea and concept of a police force is a good one.

 

The only thing I would add is that society *is* ready for private police. As the podcast pointed-out, private security agencies fill a gap that is completely outside the scope of public police forces. That gap is non-aggressive, pre-crime prevention. Police agencies react to crimes after the fact with maximum aggression. Private security firms prevent crimes through non-aggressive tactics (video surveillance, psy-ops, negotiation, etc.) applied before the crime starts, only applying force defensively if they are attacked. 

 

I think this model of non-aggressive, privatized defense is a fantastic solution to a serious problem which federalized police forces are unable to handle effectively. I see the public-sector police as being the victims of an idiotic and ineffective bureaucracy that needs to be replaced by free enterprise security agencies.

[Will Torbald]

I listened to the podcast and found the contrast between the objectives, techniques, and effectiveness of the Threat Management Center (a private security organization) versus the public-sector police services to be very eye-opening. This dovetails precisely with what Will said about the financial implementation of policing:

 

 

The only thing I would add is that society *is* ready for private police. As the podcast pointed-out, private security agencies fill a gap that is completely outside the scope of public police forces. That gap is non-aggressive, pre-crime prevention. Police agencies react to crimes after the fact with maximum aggression. Private security firms prevent crimes through non-aggressive tactics (video surveillance, psy-ops, negotiation, etc.) applied before the crime starts, only applying force defensively if they are attacked. 

 

I think this model of non-aggressive, privatized defense is a fantastic solution to a serious problem which federalized police forces are unable to handle effectively. I see the public-sector police as being the victims of an idiotic and ineffective bureaucracy that needs to be replaced by free enterprise security agencies.

 

If it isn't happening, it isn't ready. You'd have to completely replace all police forces from the entirety of the US with private efforts, and that's simply not going to happen. Nobody is ready for that.

[Tyler H]

If it isn't happening, it isn't ready. You'd have to completely replace all police forces from the entirety of the US with private efforts, and that's simply not going to happen. Nobody is ready for that.

But it is happening.... The alternative security forces can/will/are fill(ing) a demand left wanting by the state.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

They will inevitably be violating the NAP.  If you want the good without the bad there are other options.  Check out this podcast from the Tom Woods show with Dale Brown, a threat management specialist.  Google some of the other options and present them to your friend - you may even think of something new yourself and create an amazing entrepreneurial opportunity.

 

 

So kidnapping someone for possessing a plant is not a problem? Kidnapping for lying, conducting business without paying off the thugs, creating your own currency, using an unapproved currency, trading the wrong things with the wrong people, moving an animal from one area to another, paying for sex (unless it's on camera), etc, etc, etc.... not a problem?  The idea and concept of a police force that responds after a crime has been committed, profits from the existence and not the extinction of crime, and isn't bound in any way to actually protect you (Warren v. District of Columba) is a good one?  Maybe I misunderstood what you meant....

 

I don't disagree that there may be better options for the non-sociopath than joining the police force. In terms of choosing a career, the idea that sadistic and nihilistic people may be drawn to the police (as they are drawn to any agency which lacks the accountability the private market requires) is something to consider seriously for anyone who values their safety and happiness.

 

In general, market facing institutions will tend to be comprised of more empathetic and trustworthy people, because in the market participants at least have to submit themselves to the desires of the consumer. That requires a degree of empathy that may attract more empathetic and negotiable people; while an institution which is not accountable to market forces, is to some extent designed for the lazy, sadists, sociopaths and narcissists to hide out. Even if they are in the minority, it is something to consider if you want to have good relationships in the workplace and have a sense of security and reliability in your fellow employees. 

 

In some areas the police forces may be more trustworthy and divided up of generally good people with noble intentions, however this is likely to be different on a case by case basis, and what is important to remember is that though people can act against the incentives of an institution, that does not change the fact that the incentives driving state institutions are different and that will have some effect on the people who join these institutions, even against their own will as they are legally obliged to perform actions that they may not be comfortable doing.

 

While it may not be a violation of the non-aggression principle to put someone in jail for smoking weed (I'm going to make this case), it still may keep one restless at night thinking of the effects jailing will have on this person, such as an increased likely-hood of sodomy, and over time this may have profound negative psychological effects, if these types of occurrences cannot be avoided. If you can find yourself a niche in the police force to create a positive force and avoid engaging in actions that make oneself questionable in the eyes of his own conscience, then that would seem to be the best option.

 

If specific functions in a society, such as dispute resolution and determination of property rights, are monopolized or banned by the state, then any actions performed under this monopoly cannot be considered the initiation of force. The reason is because without knowledge of what would happen in the absence of such a monopoly, it cannot be proven for certain that certain property requirements (such as banning smoking and prostitution in a privately owned area) would not be threatened with force as a clear notification of participation. 

 

I am not saying this does not make arresting someone for smoking pot in their own home illegal moral, but because the nature of the situation is of monopolized coercion, then technically it cannot be said that the non-aggression principles is being violated, because property is in a state of being un-owned, and therefore it is extremely complicated to decipher when an act is literally the initiation of force, like shooting someone in a dispute would be without an institutional obligation to do so. If some functions of the police are necessary because they are banned for private citizens, then any actions which may require force to be used are in a state of uncertainty regarding whether they are moral or immoral. Taxation as a concept violates the non-aggression principle, but if man is born into a society with a state and there is no possibility of changing this situation that is actionable (of course we can work to remove the state over time, but there is no guarantee of even a marginal improvement towards this goal in one's lifetimes, let alone at any given moment when others are benefiting from state privilege and thereby putting others at a material and existential disadvantage in society), then he cannot be considered immoral if he defending himself from what would be a worse situation that is the result of state privilege being in the hands of someone other than himself.

 

That is a technical consideration, and there are many caveats. I am not convinced of the benefits of turning the state into something other than what is has been historically designed to do for any sustainable degree of time because of the incentives that inevitably make corruption seem appealing to the base instincts of even the seemingly best of men (though I think some men of character have the capacity to hold power - I would not see myself being corrupted as maybe the typical human might be because of my deep awareness of this fact). 

 

That said, it is important to be clear about this, because if we consider those who are using state privilege to defend those who want relative freedom in their hearts and have proven so throughout history (I am thinking of those people who are committed to western values) as immoral, then we are in effect handing power over to those who do not care about morality at all, who not only do not believe in the possible virtue of the state, but who directly want to use the state for the opposite of virtue and are explicit in their goals and in their lack of conscience towards accomplishing their goals. It is worse to have no standards, then to have standards but fail to meet them, because the latter will face emotional consequences that will be negative when they relinquish their values.

[shukie]

The only criminal class that is growing and becoming darker is the political class. I do very well avoiding other, more mainstream crimes. I can lock my valuables and for the most part only frequent traditionally crime free areas. I can generally diffuse most situations where I or my family can be victimized by my personal actions.

The class of criminal that is growing in power and is becoming increasingly darker and more dangerous are the political class. Rather than protect me from these people, the Police are tasked with making sure I follow the laws they write. The Police are the actual enforcers for the worst Sociopaths in existence.

Yes, Police arrest people for murder and rape and vandalism. There are private solutions to these issues. They also arrest people for selling raw milk and loose cigs. They shut down streets so politicians can have the roads to themselves and ticket us for using a tow truck that isn't licensed to operate there when we break down. If they arrest you, in many cases they will happily take all of your cash under shady pretense disallowing you to pay for a competent defense. They will charge you with a felony for minor actions ensuring that you will plead guilty to anything lesser to keep you from mounting a defense that could threaten their power in a precedent setting way.

Here in NY there are few jobs better. Most police in my area make well in excess of $100k with many hitting $200k with overtime. Retirement is available at half pay after 20 years. Officers are given the opportunity to bolster that half pay with Overtime loading so that the 50 percent is based on that as well. A popular way to retire from a police force here is to get a disability pension which provides 75 percent pay of your best years tax free. It is a great job. One would have to search far and wide to find a job that gives you such a wide range of latitude in yor performance. The good the bad and the ugly all get the same paycheck.

[adamNJ]

Please do a poll (Yes- it pays the bills, No- it violates the NAP, Don't care- because Nihilism), I want to see what the FDR community has to say.  I would go with No because a Police officer, is an enforcer of the policy who violates the NAP.

honest police officers

....... legitimize the system and disguise the real purpose of the police, to enforce the law.

 

There I fixed it for you

[Tyler H]

I don't know if you guys have seen the show 60 Days In, but it's a show where these people volunteer to go to prison. One was a cop and after being in jail quit her job because she just couldn't put people in a place like that.