We obviously need armed police forces for defense, but only to a point. It has gotten out of control how militarized the police have become, not to mention the brutality they have carried out, such as in the tragic death of Eric Garner.
In the books "Chaos Theory" by Bob Murphy, and "Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman, both gentlemen call for the total privatization of police forces. I think that this is a great idea. Although this sounds scary at first, it actually makes sense once it's broken down. I will explain why.
Under this system, present police forces would be disbanded. It would now fall on private agencies to protect people by providing guards, both armed and unarmed.
Wouldn't this be more expensive?
Not necessarily. Eliminating current police would allow for tax reductions, which would free up money for individuals. (Under my/their ideal system, taxes and spending would be cut even more in other areas, but that's another story.) There would also be numerous agencies competing to offer police services, so that would drive down the price and boost quality. If somebody wants to charge poorer people a fortune, somebody else is capable of swooping in, and providing their services for less. History has shown that the best entrepreneurs have made money by targeting the masses, not the wealthy. (Henry Ford, Ray Kroc, Dave Thomas, Sam Walton, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, just to name a few.)
Wealthy neighborhoods would be most likely protected by heavily armed guards, that would be more effective at protecting their clients' assets. The wealthy people living there could afford the costs of more guards and more expensive weaponry.
Wouldn't the police become corrupt?
No, and here's why: It would go against the interest of the agency head to have corrupt police on his/her force. If a police chief knows that one of their agents is taking a bribe, he/she can either fire or at very least, reprimand them. If that agent is fired, they will have lots of trouble getting a job in the future because their reputation would be ruined. This is an incentive to not even take bribes in the first place. If the people know that their police are taking bribes, they will lose faith in their protectors. They can stop paying that agency, and look to another service. The corrupt service would most likely go out of business. This is the opposite of our current system where corrupt police aren't really held accountable, and will even protect each other.
Wouldn't we have to worry about rogue agencies turning on us?
Nope. Citizens would be able to access other agencies by phone/internet and call on them for protection if the agency that is supposed to protect them, turns on them. There could also be security systems which would be linked to various agencies in the area, so they could rush on the scene as needed. And under this system, citizen would be able to possess firearms for protection as well. (See my other blog about gun rights if you're interested in my ideas on that.)
Wouldn't we have to worry about agencies going to war with each other?
No, and here's why: War is a costly endeavor. Politicians aren't as afraid to go to war, because they can tax people (and/or borrow money in their name, that they and future generations will have to pay back) that they don't know personally, and send soldiers that they also don't know to their deaths. However, an agency head would be less likely to send their police that they are more personally connected with to their deaths, and it would also destroy them financially. If their agents get killed, they will have to replace them, and that would be much harder. New agents would be unlikely to work for an agency that they think will likely send them to get killed.
For anyone that is worried about agencies banding together to turn on the public, it mostly likely wouldn't happen. Due to competition, there would most likely be tens of thousands (or even more) agencies competing with each other. Cartel arrangements have failed historically, except for ones that are enforced by the government. (Read my blog about alternatives to regulations if you want a more in depth explanation.) And there would be nothing stopping people from starting a new agency, or at very least calling for one.
Police brutality:
I think it's self evident how we can deal with this. If police strangle an innocent man to death, the citizens will become disillusioned, and go with another service. The police officers on that force will lose their jobs, and the agency will be disbanded most likely. This sort of system would also help give preemptive incentives to prevent brutality, out of fear of this sort of thing happening. As we know, the citizens of New York City (which I am one) cannot turn to another police force if we disapprove of what they do. However under this system, NYC could be policed by numerous agencies, each catering to various income groups, neighborhoods, etc.
I'm not saying that this solution would take care of ALL the problems, but at least start to resolve some of them. People are flawed by nature, and we would still have bad police. However, I think this at least starts to put some checks and balances in on them, rather than the government run monopoly that we have currently.
If anyone has the time, I highly recommend that they read the books and listen to the lectures on Youtube by the men posted below. Enjoy your Christmas everyone!
- STK
 |
| Bob Murphy |
 | |
| David Friedman |
