The latest news from the protests is that people are calling for defunding the police.  This is particularly the case in Minneapolis where the killing of George Floyd happened.

A majority of city council members in Minneapolis are supposedly in favor of defunding the police.  Assuming they haven’t turned into libertarians and assuming they don’t want all-out chaos, then they probably haven’t thought it through.  Maybe I shouldn’t make the latter assumption, as they do thrive on some chaos, but even that has its limits.  Some of the politicians and the elites thrive on chaos until it hits their own backyard.

This has many people asking about the implications of getting rid of the police.  Are they really going to not have police officers in Minneapolis?  I highly doubt it.  If that is what is being proposed, then that would certainly affirm people’s right to own guns and hire private security companies, even though that should be the case anyway.

The most obvious question is what happens if there is a criminal trying to commit a crime. Who are you going to call? Ghostbusters?

Libertarians who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists have been trying to answer this question for a long while.  The answer would lie somewhere with insurance companies and private security firms.

As an aside, this is the one issue that holds me back from being a complete anarcho-capitalist. I have not been able to satisfactorily answer in my own mind what happens to someone who uses aggression against someone else.  Can a private security firm arrest the person?  What does the private security firm do with the person? Is it just certain private security companies that can arrest criminals, and what gives them the authority to do this?  These are questions I have not been able to completely answer.

As another aside, I also don’t like the marketing of calling myself an anarchist even if I could resolve the above issue.  I also like to make it clear that if others wish to live under a state, they should be free to do so.  They just shouldn’t compel others to do the same.

If there is one major function the government (i.e., the state) is supposed to provide, it is to protect people and their property from aggression.  You could also argue that the state is there is to help enforce contracts, but obviously protecting people from aggression is generally more important.

People who are advocating a full defunding of the police department are being asked a simple question: Who do you call if someone is trying to physically harm you?  Who do you call if someone is trying to break into your house in the middle of the night?  I heard one councilwoman try to step around the question and say that it comes from a place of privilege.  In other words, calling the police because someone is trying to break into your house is a thing of privilege.  Somehow I don’t think most Americans are going to go for that message.

Do Statists Really Want to Get Rid of Force?

While most people discussing this issue are talking about the police in terms of protecting the public, there is something being missed outside of libertarian circles, and I find it quite fascinating.  It provides an opportunity to teach others about the nature of the state.

Most of the people saying they want to defund the police are not libertarians.  In fact, most of them are nowhere near libertarianism. They are largely authoritarians. Some of them are self-identified Marxists.

They are failing to grasp the contradiction in their own proposal.  If they get rid of the police department, then who is going to enforce all of their authoritarian edicts?

If you get rid of the police department, you are really getting rid of government, at least at the local level.  There are no police to enforce laws against drugs or prostitution.  I am good with that.  Maybe many of the protesters, who are mostly political leftists, would approve of that too.  We can find agreement in some areas.

But it also means there are no police to enforce any other government program.  It would likely mean the end of government welfare, at least at the local level.  Maybe it would go further than local laws too, unless the state government or federal government is willing to send in an enforcement agency.

If there are no local police, why pay your property taxes?  There’s nobody who can come to arrest you.  How will the city of Minneapolis collect money to fund schools and other forms of welfare?  That sounds good to me, but I don’t think the protesters are promoting any of that.

This is why I don’t think this is going to happen.  They aren’t getting rid of the police, even if the legislature tries to go against public opinion.  Maybe they will name the police something else.  Maybe there will be some restrictions on police that didn’t exist before.  But I’m pretty sure that if you don’t pay your taxes, you will get called to court eventually.  And if you don’t show up to court, eventually people with badges and guns will show up at your door to arrest you.  They can be called the police or peace officers or anything else, but the effect will be the same.  A rose by any other name, and all of that.

It’s actually nice that we can have this conversation.  I don’t think we are going to see a drastic reduction in state power because of these protests, but one can always hope.  At least it gives libertarians an opportunity to point out the nature of the state.  In order for the government’s commands to mean anything, they have to have an enforcement agency.  Otherwise, it is just a suggestion.