Defund the Police – A case for Private Security
Since the death of George Floyd, defunding the police has been a red-hot topic. For conservatives, the idea of defunding the police is nothing short of lunacy. For progressives, the police represent everything wrong with the old system, with some calling for the complete defunding of police. However, most progressives would rather reform the police than actually defund it. What ever side of the fence you fall on, just about everybody has something to say about policing. Unfortunately, the standard narratives from both sides vastly miss the mark.
Conservatives
Let’s start with the easy side to dismiss. Conservatives say that only a lunatic would defund the police. Without them, wild gangs of criminals would run the streets, terrorizing anybody in their path. The ‘thin blue line’ is the only thing that keeps the public safe from criminals. With a little thought on the subject, it is easy to dismiss these positions.
However, before tackling the police, let’s talk about schools. Most Conservatives would agree that public schools are failing to educate our children, and instead do nothing more than feed leftist nonsense to our youths. Instead of forcing children into public schools, parents should be able to use that money towards tuition with private schools. When talking about schools, Conservatives would be happy to defund public schools, with the obvious solution of replacing them with private schools.
Hopefully, you already see the analogy between schools and police. It is a strawman argument to assume that defunding police means that nothing would take their place. Without a public, socialized police force, private security would fill the needs of keeping people safe. It is true that with zero security, criminals would run the streets. But only a fool would advocate for zero security. Defunding the police does not imply zero security. Instead, it implies that you are on your own to protect yourself with either private security or the 2nd amendment. Without the heavy burden of taxes for cops, companies could easily afford private security. Even now, it is a fallacy to assume that police protect individuals anyways, so not much would change for them. The 2nd amendment has been, and always will be, the best way to protect yourself.
The final point I want to stress is that public police are a form of socialism, which Conservatives should be firmly against. Since taxes pay for police, governments forces everybody to pay into government run monopolies on providing security. But why is that the best way to run security? Wouldn’t it be better to have competing security firms? If you believe in capitalism, then you should easily see why private security firms would do much better jobs than government agencies. The other part of the current system that should anger Conservatives is the distribution of services. Remember, with a government-controlled system, faceless bureaucrats decide where and how police operate. Taxpayers have little to no say in the decision-making process. A private system for security would be the complete opposite.
In Concorida, There must be a better way, private companies protect property. Security professionals are regular citizens, with no special privileges, rights, or immunities. They protect property on behalf of the owners and maintain public safety during large gatherings. But unlike police states, people are free to do whatever they please so long as it is peaceful and with the consent of the property owners. Security forces do not spend time arresting peaceful people for minor or victimless crimes.
Progressives
The left is usually fairly strong at diagnosing issues but fails when proposing solutions. In this case, however, the left has derailed. The assumption that police are violent because of racism is simply wrong. There is so much evidence to the contrary that it should be obvious that playing the ‘race-card’ is a political tactic and not a fair diagnosis of the problems with policing. Simply put, the police are violent because they can be. As part of the State, police have qualified immunity, protecting them against egregious acts of violence. It should be clear since the COVID lockdowns that police will happily enforce any law, regardless of how unjust, unfair, or immoral.
What about reforming the cops? Does the left have anything here? Maybe. Let’s start with race. Replacing white cops with black cops would not fix issues with police. If it did, then Africa would have the best police in the world. Since Africa is renown for corruption and violence, I think we can safely drop that line of reasoning. Same with racial sensitivity training. Being more sensitive to political correctness only makes cops jobs more stressful and does little to dissuade violence.
There are some proposals from the left that would help, like ending the drug war and removing asset forfeiture laws. Both are steps in the right direction, but do not solve the underlying problems. Even if these laws were fixed, it is safe to assume that governments will pass equally ridiculous laws, and executive orders in the future. The COVID lockdowns are prefect examples of that. As a footnote, the drug war should be ended because it doesn’t work and unjustly locks people away for victimless ‘crimes’.
Security
Instead of focusing on marginal fixes, the police should be defunded, completely defunded. It would permanently solve so many of problems with security, and it would greatly enhance personal freedoms. America has a rich history of private security, so it should not be a stretch to displace public, socialized police forces with private firms.
To find out how it works out for Concordia, download and read the book now. If you find it entertaining or provocative, please leave a positive review on Amazon.
