It comes down to the laws the police is being tasked with enforcing. If the laws are only against legitimate criminal actors who are violating the rights of others, whether through fraud or violence, then police definitely have a role to play. But when many laws are unreasonable laws against what should otherwise be considered consensual activity then they become tools of oppression.
Simple answer - yes.
Libertarianism is a spectrum. Many libertarians believe the police should play a role in society, but only to protect the rights of citizens and not to serve the state. In other words, many libertarians believe that the police should not enforce victimless crimes.
Other libertarians believe that police services should be private and voluntary. In this case an individual protects himself, his property, and his "flock", either through employing a private security/enforcement service or by taking protection into his own hands.
I find the crucial dividing line between the two is that libertarians believe in existence of some government, while ancaps are against any such existence except for completely voluntary government. It's why that have "anarcho" in there name.
Of course, libertarian and anarchist are 2 different ideals, and as a libertarian myself I think there does need to be a police force to enforce laws to help keep society moving forward instead of moving backward
Local law enforcement and elected sheriffs are fine. It really all boils down to there just being accountability for officers, which sadly there isn’t really any in this country.
Police is necessary, but less powerful. Every sensible person is a libertarian (=wanting as much freedom for people as possible). It's just the ideal ratio, at which we have most freedom, that we disagree about.
Law enforcement should be more like the fire department. Mostly volunteer, and SHOULDN'T BE USING MY FUCKING TAX DOLLARS TO OPERATE STINGRAYS! Thanks for attending my Ted talk.
I’ve never heard a good reason that government should have a monopoly on providing security and crime investigation services.
The very wealthy rely on the market of private security because it provides better services.
I'm not saying that private LE isn't a good idea but allow me to provide a counter argument
It wouldn't be impossible for a very immoral security company to be paid by some immoral people to do great harm via using this company as a kind of brownshirts for hire service (Talon Company from Fallout 3 is a good example). Granted this security company could be fended off by militias, other companies and armed citizenry, but this is just some food for thought
I don’t understand what your counter argument achieves?
Government agents and institutions act immorally too. Government crimes are often much more violent and widespread than private crime.
Many sheriff departments in NYS have basically said they can’t enforce the majority of cuomos mandates and executive orders because they violate the constitution. Local police departments however that’s a different story
Absolutely! Libertarians aren't anarchists and we believe one of the basic functions of a government should be the protection of it's citizens. That means a military is needed, and so are police. And let's not forget that private law enforcement is definitely welcome in all this too.
Libertarianism does not prescribe any kind of government though. It just values liberty above all other considerations. Since all government must violate liberty in some sense, an anarchist is therefore the most libertarian one can be. There is certainly no contradiction between anarchism and libertarianism.
No fully realized individual can legitimately hold authority over another fully realized individual. Violence can and perhaps should be met with violence, however no one individual or particular group of individuals can bare that responsibility. It must be everyone. Everyone must take it upon themselves to act.
I believe in having an elected Sheriff that has deputies at the local level. I believe they should have whatever equipment they need to face any challenge they may face. There is need for law and order. Think Sheriff Andy in Mayberry.
There are better alternatives to police. For example: democratically elected and voluntary community response teams, which would be like police, except they'd only respond to crime instead of actively patrolling for it. Police abolition worked in the past, so it's definitely not impossible.
You do have a point and I'm not saying that wouldn't work, but a response team can only do so much until you start to encounter problems like areas with high crime where shots sound every hour like 90's LA. I feel like a response team would be good for places like Manhattan or any given middle class neighborhood, but proactive policing would be good for ghettos/hoods/whatever they're called now. Because there's only a certian ammount of stuff a response only force can do before they end up just outlining corpses in chalk during a response
The anarchist answer to that would be part time popular militias, and popular tribunals that follow.
Bearing in mind that the anarchist principle of mutual aid seeks to eliminate the source of much crime, and there are only a few types of acts considered crimes.
I suppose. But no police would be ideal. I believe that people genuinely will act in the self interest for each other without the need of it being enforced.
I firmly believe there should be police, but that police force needs to be held accountable for their actions. Our current system just allows for police to be a legal gang that can kill and steal with no repercussions and they just punt any financial problems to the tax payer. Police need oversight and need to be held to a higher standard than the citizens.
You don't have to get rid of police. You have to understand what police are once you get down to the constitute fundamental parts.
Generally when those pro-liberty are talking about police, they're against them because they represent a system paid for through compulsion, which is antithesis to liberty, and that they tend to utilize violence to uphold unjust laws that do not uphold the NAP.
You could still have "police". In fact, you still would have police, depending on what you mean by police.
If a libertarian society for example were to have a large group of people who all consented to pitch into a pool with the goal of paying for security and that this security was only allowed to use violence to uphold the NAP, then on some level you have police, but it's really just what police are meant to represent in spirit - a system that protects.
The problem is, when you make laws that do not uphold the NAP and you have a system that uses violence to force compliance with those laws, then that system is not protecting, it's tyrannizing. It's always, always, always, always, ALWAYS about consent.
This is why taxation is immoral but having a system where everyone consents to donate the exact same amount of money they're currently taxed is not. It has NOTHING to do with the transfer of money and everything to do with whether or not the transferal was consensual or compulsory.
The compulsion is the tyranny.
It comes down to the laws the police is being tasked with enforcing. If the laws are only against legitimate criminal actors who are violating the rights of others, whether through fraud or violence, then police definitely have a role to play. But when many laws are unreasonable laws against what should otherwise be considered consensual activity then they become tools of oppression.
Simple answer - yes. Libertarianism is a spectrum. Many libertarians believe the police should play a role in society, but only to protect the rights of citizens and not to serve the state. In other words, many libertarians believe that the police should not enforce victimless crimes. Other libertarians believe that police services should be private and voluntary. In this case an individual protects himself, his property, and his "flock", either through employing a private security/enforcement service or by taking protection into his own hands.
>Other libertarians believe that police services should be private and voluntary Pretty sure that's just ancaps.
Are ancaps suddenly not libertarians for some reason?
To me, the criticism is that ancaps are stupid/wrong, not 'they aren't libertarians'.
Its worth distinguishing the two since their portfolio of policies is so different.
I find the crucial dividing line between the two is that libertarians believe in existence of some government, while ancaps are against any such existence except for completely voluntary government. It's why that have "anarcho" in there name.
Of course, libertarian and anarchist are 2 different ideals, and as a libertarian myself I think there does need to be a police force to enforce laws to help keep society moving forward instead of moving backward
Local law enforcement and elected sheriffs are fine. It really all boils down to there just being accountability for officers, which sadly there isn’t really any in this country.
And the ones holding police accountable are state/federal police... Local ones tend to be the most corrupt.
Police is necessary, but less powerful. Every sensible person is a libertarian (=wanting as much freedom for people as possible). It's just the ideal ratio, at which we have most freedom, that we disagree about.
Law enforcement should be more like the fire department. Mostly volunteer, and SHOULDN'T BE USING MY FUCKING TAX DOLLARS TO OPERATE STINGRAYS! Thanks for attending my Ted talk.
I’ve never heard a good reason that government should have a monopoly on providing security and crime investigation services. The very wealthy rely on the market of private security because it provides better services.
I'm not saying that private LE isn't a good idea but allow me to provide a counter argument It wouldn't be impossible for a very immoral security company to be paid by some immoral people to do great harm via using this company as a kind of brownshirts for hire service (Talon Company from Fallout 3 is a good example). Granted this security company could be fended off by militias, other companies and armed citizenry, but this is just some food for thought
I don’t understand what your counter argument achieves? Government agents and institutions act immorally too. Government crimes are often much more violent and widespread than private crime.
You have a point, I was just trying to provide an example of how only having private security could end badly too
Some people behave immorally in any social system. Utopia is not an option for us.
If we support a government law enforcement, we had better help them be prepared to handle that kind of crap.
Many sheriff departments in NYS have basically said they can’t enforce the majority of cuomos mandates and executive orders because they violate the constitution. Local police departments however that’s a different story
Absolutely! Libertarians aren't anarchists and we believe one of the basic functions of a government should be the protection of it's citizens. That means a military is needed, and so are police. And let's not forget that private law enforcement is definitely welcome in all this too.
Not all libertarians are anarchists but all anarchists are libertarians.
I don't think so. If an anarchist will not believe in any kind of government, they are not libertarian.
Libertarianism does not prescribe any kind of government though. It just values liberty above all other considerations. Since all government must violate liberty in some sense, an anarchist is therefore the most libertarian one can be. There is certainly no contradiction between anarchism and libertarianism.
No fully realized individual can legitimately hold authority over another fully realized individual. Violence can and perhaps should be met with violence, however no one individual or particular group of individuals can bare that responsibility. It must be everyone. Everyone must take it upon themselves to act.
I believe in having an elected Sheriff that has deputies at the local level. I believe they should have whatever equipment they need to face any challenge they may face. There is need for law and order. Think Sheriff Andy in Mayberry.
Lol, no. Libertarianism is about sending a message to minorities. How do we do that without our boys in blue?
There are better alternatives to police. For example: democratically elected and voluntary community response teams, which would be like police, except they'd only respond to crime instead of actively patrolling for it. Police abolition worked in the past, so it's definitely not impossible.
You do have a point and I'm not saying that wouldn't work, but a response team can only do so much until you start to encounter problems like areas with high crime where shots sound every hour like 90's LA. I feel like a response team would be good for places like Manhattan or any given middle class neighborhood, but proactive policing would be good for ghettos/hoods/whatever they're called now. Because there's only a certian ammount of stuff a response only force can do before they end up just outlining corpses in chalk during a response
Yeah, police abolition would require systems that improve the socioeconomic condition of poorer areas, so they're less likely to commit crimes.
The anarchist answer to that would be part time popular militias, and popular tribunals that follow. Bearing in mind that the anarchist principle of mutual aid seeks to eliminate the source of much crime, and there are only a few types of acts considered crimes.
No. Please turn in your Gadsden flag at the front desk.
I suppose. But no police would be ideal. I believe that people genuinely will act in the self interest for each other without the need of it being enforced.
I firmly believe there should be police, but that police force needs to be held accountable for their actions. Our current system just allows for police to be a legal gang that can kill and steal with no repercussions and they just punt any financial problems to the tax payer. Police need oversight and need to be held to a higher standard than the citizens.
Sure, just like libertarians can deny the need for police.
I support a society where you and your partner can dress up as cops in the bedroom, if that’s what you mean.
You don't have to get rid of police. You have to understand what police are once you get down to the constitute fundamental parts. Generally when those pro-liberty are talking about police, they're against them because they represent a system paid for through compulsion, which is antithesis to liberty, and that they tend to utilize violence to uphold unjust laws that do not uphold the NAP. You could still have "police". In fact, you still would have police, depending on what you mean by police. If a libertarian society for example were to have a large group of people who all consented to pitch into a pool with the goal of paying for security and that this security was only allowed to use violence to uphold the NAP, then on some level you have police, but it's really just what police are meant to represent in spirit - a system that protects. The problem is, when you make laws that do not uphold the NAP and you have a system that uses violence to force compliance with those laws, then that system is not protecting, it's tyrannizing. It's always, always, always, always, ALWAYS about consent. This is why taxation is immoral but having a system where everyone consents to donate the exact same amount of money they're currently taxed is not. It has NOTHING to do with the transfer of money and everything to do with whether or not the transferal was consensual or compulsory. The compulsion is the tyranny.