Do We Need Police?

10
1240
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The question in this headline is being asked but is improperly framed. Who is “we,” white man – figuratively speaking?

Police – armed government workers, more accurately described – are essentially a service, though one “provided” at gunpoint. And that is the proper question to ask. Should Smith be obliged to fund a service he neither uses nor feels need of? Which he may object to on moral grounds?

Because Jones desires it?

Jefferson wrote that it is tyrannical – and sinful – to compel a man to furnish money for the propagation of ideas he loathes. Is it any less tyrannical – or sinful – to compel a man to furnish money used to perform “services” he loathes?

This problem of AGW brutality is an us problem – because we’re all of us complicit.  Because we finance it. Many of us without objecting to it. This is – well, was – the argument made by ol’ Osama to justify the various attacks attributed to him. He said that bombs falling on Muslims were built using dollars paid by Americans, who didn’t object – or at least, didn’t stop paying.

He had a point.

How much a threat would AGWs pose to all of our lives if they lacked the military hardware to Hut! Hut! Hut! us with?  Who pays for the Batman Belts, the multiple magazines and high-capacity Glocks? Who pays the settlements awarded to the victims of AGW excesses?

The answer is – all of us.

But not all of us want these “services.” Which – never spoken of, for the obvious reason – is precisely why they are forced on us. Which ought to raise another question: What does it say about the value of a “service” you’re forced to pay for?

The answer to that one is obvious, too.

Now imagine if you didn’t have to pay for it. If the “service” offered could be refused. If the provider was obliged to convince you of the value of what he offered – and knew you could cancel the “service” if it ever became unsatisfactory.

That is the solution to the problem of armed government workers. Systemic abuse can only be maintained in an environment of corruption and coercion. A business that bilks its shareholders, abuses its employees and gyps its customers does not remain in business – provided, of course, it lacks the ability to coerce.

There is arguably a real need for protective services; the fact that many people pay extra for this – for private security – because the “security” they’re forced to pay for doesn’t provide it – speaks volumes.

Most people don’t want their stuff stolen, their property damaged, their wives (or themselves) assaulted by thugs. Many would willingly pay for protective services, just as they already do for private security and volunteer fire services.

What must not be spoken of aloud is that many fewer would willingly pay to fund their own fleecing for “speeding,” not wearing seatbelts, ID “checks” and so on. They’d probably pay money just to be left alone – in the manner of handing over a sum of cash to a mafia enforcer in exchange for the same promise.

The point being we have a mafia problem. And the answer to that problem is, first of all, to tear apart the idea that “we” need any “service” at gunpoint. The latter in air quotes to emphasize that it isn’t a “service” when you can’t say no to it.

It’s extortion, nothing more. The paying off of a schoolyard bully in “exchange” for him maybe not stealing your lunch today. The bully grown up to manhood – if you can call it that – wearing a quasi-military outfit, often with Cracker Jack Box “sergeant” stripes or “captain’s” bars.

Hut! Hut! Hut!

If AGWs had no remit to steal our money they’d have no means to steal our lives. It’s really that simple – and that easy to return to. There haven’t always been armed government workers in this country. Or even “law enforcement,” as they like to style themselves.

And we weren’t always forced to pay for “services” not all of us or even most of us asked for.

Just because that’s changed doesn’t mean it can’t be changed. We are where we are today because of a series of questions not asked – and answers never solicited. If we asked them again – and our answers were respected – we might just find ourselves in a better place tomorrow.

. . .

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

If you’d like an ear tag – custom made! – just ask and it will be delivered.  

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!

Share Button

10 COMMENTS

  1. As Lysander Spooner wrote near 150 years ago, Vices are not Crimes.

    So much of what enforcement entails is hammering people for statutory offenses where there is no victim. If we could get back to the idea that Law Enforcement is only needed when called upon by a victim we’d eliminate 99% of the problems.

    Whether it’s speeding, dui, drugs, prostitution, gambling or any number of Code violations, no one is being harmed. If someone driving a car kills another person the punishment should be the same, regardless of the level of sobriety. Yes, if myopic, palsied, doped up Granny runs over some kids waiting for a school bus she’s going to the slammer. if a 16 year old wants to smoke a joint on the porch of his parents house, that’s between him and Mom & Dad, NOT GovCo.

    In the most recent police killing the guy fell asleep in the drive thru at Wendy’s. Why didn’t they just wake him up and call someone to come get him? Why the Hut, Hut, Hut? He harmed no one.

    Unless and until more people come to the realization that Liberty comes with risk and that no matter how many laws are passed people will do things that potentially harm only themselves. And that unless there is an actual victim that seeks redress there’s no need for a legal action by The State to be initiated against them. Life is risk. Utopia is not an option. You busybodies need to quit trying to legislate Heaven on Earth, you’re turning life into a living Hell.

  2. I think that the sheriff and a few deputies is the best way to go; when extra manpower is needed, get a posse together. It was that “posse comitatus”, the power of the community, that worked for decades. Why not go back to what worked? Why not go back to a system where the head, i.e. the sheriff, is ACCOUNTABLE to the people, since he stands for election? The sheriff and posse comitatus seems to be a better system than what we have now.

    As for what we have now, I think that taking away qualified immunity would cut down a LOT of the BS you see coming from police departments and their AGWs. Medical doctors aren’t immune from mistakes or misconduct; why are police? If AGWs were held PERSONALLY ACCOUNTABLE for their misconduct, then it would be much less of a problem.

    Another step that could be taken is to legalize drugs. It’s courtesy of The War on Drugs that led to the evisceration of our Constitutional rights. Remember civil asset forfeiture, anyone? Remember no-knock warrants? Remember all that?

    None of those steps would make everything perfect, but they would be huge steps in the right direction…

    • If the sheriff had to convince a few armed private citizens to go along as backup to make an arrest, there would be no or fewer arrests for trivial stuff.

    • Agreed. If only all the blm nonsense was actually real… they’d accomplish changing these laws. Funny how the blm BUMS run around rioting but never accomplish ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. Hmmmmm I wonder why. [cuz they’re phoney baloneys]

      I’d add one more change to the sheriffs… instead of getting paid via taxes, get paid via each person paying for a MEMBERSHIP in order to get service. That sounds maybe pointless on the surface, but I think it’s a BIG deal WHERE their money comes from. Since sheriffs currently get paid by the GOV, they pretty much work for the gov, but if they got paid by the people, then… I think it really does matter WHERE their paycheck comes from.

  3. Maybe if they weren’t so busy writing tickets for minor speeding and not wearing seatbelts, they actually would have some time to investigate crimes against persons and property.

  4. Indeed, there is no conceivable WORSE way to carry out a method to secure our lives. The entire structure of police departments begs for misbehavior. The chief of police is appointed, not elected, and so is politically separated from those who appoint them. After all, it’s not the mayors fault the chief of police runs a gang of armed thugs irresponsibly. Like you Eric, I favor a voluntary association in security acquisition. Alternately, if we insist on compulsory association, Sheriffs departments are typically more responsive to the populace, since Sheriffs are elected. Abolishing the police, and expanding Sheriffs departments would not be ideal, but it would be an improvement. Besides that, most Sheriffs are not bound entirely to municipal politics, being also responsible to those of us who wisely choose not to live in cities.

LEAVE A REPLY