I've come to the conclusion that they're thugs who are used as the means of violence by the state to coerce its subjects. These types believe in the conquest of men, and try to rationalize their acts of coercion by shifting the burden of responsibility onto their victims. What set the framework for my conviction was Lew Rockwell Blog, and now this police forum on Monster.com was the final nail in the coffin:
Spit Masks
LEO butthurt over getting bad PR
Roman Polanski must burn!
Of course, it's neither fair nor accurate to say that police in general are a band of thugs, as I'm sure there are many police officers that are well intended and shocked like us at some of their colleagues' conduct. But there are definitely institutional incentives encouraging thuggery, waste and belittlement of 'civilians'. I'm very grateful for William Grigg's posts on LRC keeping me up to date on the list of police abuses; I just wish he didn't post so often. The lack of mass outrage over our police system frightens me as much as the abuse itself.
Unfortunately, the privatization of police/security is the most radical libertarian idea proposed, but I feel it's one of the most necessary reforms at the moment.
"If, on the contrary, the consumer is not free to buy security wherever he pleases, you forthwith see open up a large profession dedicated to arbitrariness and bad management... the police [become] vexatious, individual liberty is no longer respected, the price of security is abusively inflated and inequitably apportioned... In a word, all the abuses inherent in monopoly or in communism crop up."
"I am a sinner who does not expect forgiveness - but I am not a government official." - Francis Wolcott, Deadwood
Michael J Green: Of course, it's neither fair nor accurate to say that police in general are a band of thugs, as I'm sure there are many police officers that are well intended and shocked like us at some of their colleagues' conduct.
Of course, it's neither fair nor accurate to say that police in general are a band of thugs, as I'm sure there are many police officers that are well intended and shocked like us at some of their colleagues' conduct.
They're in the position of enforcing law, not disobeying orders. They're given the means to extirpate people in all fashion: guns, spit masks, tazers etc. They have special legal privileges, such as Garrity Rule, which make us punching bags of an aristocracy. All of that makes an LEO belong to the class of an executioner, no matter what his/her intentions are on the road of hell.
Michael J Green: But there are definitely institutional incentives encouraging thuggery, waste and belittlement of 'civilians'.
But there are definitely institutional incentives encouraging thuggery, waste and belittlement of 'civilians'.
Could you elaborate and list examples?
Michael J Green: The lack of mass outrage over our police system frightens me as much as the abuse itself.
The lack of mass outrage over our police system frightens me as much as the abuse itself.
The tune that is sung is the same as the forum I linked, "It's bad people that are the problem and not the system itself."
The worst get promoted & rise to the top.
What exactly is so contemptible about disliking a child rapist (in response to your showcasing a police forums post on Roman Polanski)? I can see where you are coming from on the spit masks and PR, but I don't see anything odd about hating Polanski.
The police who leave their car engines/air conditioning running while they are taking their lunch breaks can go die. Small towns who put their schools near highways and interstates that reduce the speed limit from 70 to 40 to 35 to 20 to 30 to 20 to etc can go eat thumb tacs.Though its not all a priori bad. If the state didn't hire people to watch the roads, road-owners would certainly hire security to do basically the same thing. Does anyone know if these long stretches of toll roads rely on private security for enforcement?
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
Capital Pumper:I've come to the conclusion that they're thugs who are used as the means of violence by the state to coerce its subjects.
In their capacity as law enforcement officers, indeed this is very much true. In their capacity as peace officers, not so much.
Trouble is, even the "best" (from a libertarian POV) police officers act in both of these capacities. Shades of grey, really.
So it's not like there are "good cops" and "bad cops". There are just "cops" and I'd venture that most of the time, even the "best" of them are complete dickbags according to the former principle of "law enforcement".
Furthermore, I'd say that the vast majority of police officers don't fall into the subset of "best", so most of them are something less, they spend far more of their time following orders and enforcing laws than they do even feigning to look out for the general welfare, to "serve and protect", etc.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
Praetyre: What exactly is so contemptible about disliking a child rapist (in response to your showcasing a police forums post on Roman Polanski)? I can see where you are coming from on the spit masks and PR, but I don't see anything odd about hating Polanski.
Exactly I was thinking really...
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Police are individuals. There are good and bad individuals. Policy these days seem to be more bad than good.
"...The post-totalitarian system contrives to force life into its most probable states...This system serves people only to the extent necessary to ensure that people will serve it
Vaclav Havel
Watch the deputies in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIoyJ-LyAaE
There are many people in law enforcement that fit the profile of a thug with police powers.
Most are trying to make a living in a field they believe makes a difference in the world.
While the laws of the state go beyond the ridiculous, there does exist a need for enforcement even in an An-Cap society. If I own a road, I'm going to make sure it's safe for those who've paid for the priviledge of driving on it. Part of that safety would be to control the operation of vehicles by having people work for me to issue citations and/or deny access to problem drivers. Failure to take measures to protect people who've purchased my product (my road system) would result in financial repercusions from those who are injured. The person suing me would have to establish my negligence. I'd also be negligent if any employee I had violated the NAP against those who use my roads.
Investigators would be another private function.
Court enforcement officiers would also be a necessary function, provided both parties agree to the terms of the court services - another necessary private function. In most instances these officers would be more like clerks than anything else.
In most cases in the private world, there would be no real need for armed officers. Those who violate the NAP would be subject to much harsher penalties - and that might not even require an armed police force (since the citizens themselves could be armed if they chose to be).
I think it's worth noting that some law enforcement personnel have stated that they will not follow orders to enforce unconstiutional commands from the Federal or State governments, in the event a dictator should take over. I just wish they could apply that to the state in general.
K.C. Farmer:I think it's worth noting that some law enforcement personnel have stated that they will not follow orders to enforce unconstiutional commands from the Federal or State governments, in the event a dictator should take over. I just wish they could apply that to the state in general.
It doesn't take a whole lot of balls to declare that you're unwilling to shoot down civilians if a dictator seizes power, so I am utterly unimpressed by the whole "Oathkeepers" idea. I mean, yeah, it sounds all nice and constitutional-y apple pie and puppy dogs.
Except that the vast majority of LEO labor hours are spent following unconstitutional orders, and enforcing unconstitutional laws.
The keyword is burn not boo.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap