Using gang violence to end gang violence
Thuggish police beat, tased, and broke the arm of a student for wearing baggy pants. It was in an effort to rid the school of its "gang culture."
This is what happens when you give a guy a gun, a taser, and bat; immunity from the law; and tell him to go enforce the law.
Since the police force is a government monopoly, it has been removed from market forces. There is no feedback mechanism to tell them whether they're serving the customer or not. Monopoly is why government services (think DMV) suck. If Costco were to tase customers who wore baggy pants, they would lose customers, get sued, and probably go out of business. If a police officer abuses customers, our taxes still pay them.
People tend to scoff at the idea of breaking up police monopoly. The main argument I've heard:
Q: In a free market, wouldn't only rich people would have police?
A: In our free market, poor people have access to almost every good imaginable (for example—poor Americans are more likely to be obese, evidence that capitalism takes care of the poor). And goods, like computers, that begin as luxury toys for the rich, soon become available to the masses (think Wal-Mart).
On the other hand, in our monopolized "justice" system, poor people who can't afford cartelized lawyers go to prison, while rich criminals (even murderers) go free.
And under this system, many poor minorities see the police as the bad guys. And rightly so.
For further reading on this subject, see chapter 12 of Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty free online
(or buy it
).
 |
| Who's gangsta now? |
Since the police force is a government monopoly, it has been removed from market forces. There is no feedback mechanism to tell them whether they're serving the customer or not. Monopoly is why government services (think DMV) suck. If Costco were to tase customers who wore baggy pants, they would lose customers, get sued, and probably go out of business. If a police officer abuses customers, our taxes still pay them.
Q: In a free market, wouldn't only rich people would have police?
A: In our free market, poor people have access to almost every good imaginable (for example—poor Americans are more likely to be obese, evidence that capitalism takes care of the poor). And goods, like computers, that begin as luxury toys for the rich, soon become available to the masses (think Wal-Mart).
On the other hand, in our monopolized "justice" system, poor people who can't afford cartelized lawyers go to prison, while rich criminals (even murderers) go free.
And under this system, many poor minorities see the police as the bad guys. And rightly so.
For further reading on this subject, see chapter 12 of Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty free online
(or buy it
).
Have you been to the DMV lately buddy? It's pretty efficient now. Maybe another example would be more apt. I'm sure you can find one.
ReplyDeleteEfficient at screwing you. What did you think of their service? Were you happy that you had to pay them so that they would not send their goons to pull you over, fine you, and impound your car?
ReplyDeleteI can see no difference between the DMV and a mafia racket. You pay them for "protection." If you don't pay them, you'll pay in another way.
This kind of mistreatment is only possible under a state-violence enforced monopoly.
Their services are unwanted. ID plates are a great idea, but could be handled by a private enterprise. People would want to register their cars, so if they were stolen, they could be easily identified and returned.
If a free-market car registration service were allowed to compete, the DMV would be history
I'm just saying that it is a quick in and out. I don't disagree with your larger points—mostly. Privatizing security still kind of makes me nervous. However, f*** da poleece.
ReplyDelete