"Oh my god you moron, don't you realise that without police crack heads will rob your house and kill your family."
The above is a fairly typical response to the idea that we don't need state provided police, my response is that I have never actually witnesses police offers stopping a crime in progress. Most criminals are smart enough to take a quick look around before smashing in a window.
I have however witnessed many police offers harassing teenagers, punishing those who don't wish to purchase car insurance & cracking the skulls of those who's opinions differ from that of the state. Meanwhile store security staff detain shoplifters, private security personal protect corporate & private property & ordinary citizens tackle armed robbers. This is not to say that the police don't perform an important function, just a function that can be performed equally well, if not better, by private citizens.
Coming back to the earlier satirical response, the notion that crime rates will increase in the absence of state police is nonsense. "Crack heads" are still quite capable of robbing and killing you if they want even if you throw an extra 100 community support officers onto the streets. The police simply cannot be everywhere at once and unless one happens to be swandering down your street whilst your house is being robbed there is little chance that a squad car will arrive before your TV has found its way into someone elses living room. But even so everybodies house is not being robbed.
I think this issue really boils down to a failure to understand what deters people from committing crimes. I can identify two factors; firstly and most obviously peoples sense of moral decency. Most people find the thought of killing somebody terrible not just because it is against the law, but because they feel bad about ending another persons life. The same moral conscience applies to most crimes; theft, rape, etc.
Secondly, for those who's moral conscience is either non existent or temporarily impaired, the prospect of being caught and suffering punishment is the only other deterrent. If someone misses both of the above criteria then they would have no issue with harming another individual; hence why no matter how many laws or police you have some people will always commit crimes. However do either of these factors evaporate if state police were to disappear?
No; moral conscience is not maintained by the state, it is instilled in each individual through upbringing and social standards. Does the deterrent to commit crimes suddenly disintegrate in the absense of the state? I agree that with an absolute abolishment of security there would be no punishment & therefore every reason to commit a crime, beside your own sense of decency. However that sort of scenario is absurd, people could and would provide their own security & punishments through the use of local private security/police forces or self-defense.
Local neighbourhoods could pitch in for a "bobby" or two "on the beat", bigger security firms could provide larger areas of call-out coverage to protect people form crimes in progress, private-investigators or bounty hunters could be used to tracking down criminals. All of this can be provided with several added benefits over state provided policing. Those who would rather take the risk and defend themselves can save their money, local areas can bluster up security if they wish without having to wait for a state prescription & there would be no absolute position of power to persecute the populace as competitive firms would keep each other in check (e.g. CompanyA is behaving in a way I don't approve of, I'll take my business to CompanyB).
No comments:
Post a Comment