A Private Policeforce?

[Maarten]

This was a mail I sent to a radio show host, where one of the people was talking about private police, and how competition was a good thing in that case. For clarity's sake, I am arguing against this idea.

The thing I heard that made me think was that it would be a good thing to bring competition to the government police in the form of a private police force (at least, that was my interpretation) and how this would work much better (in the same way as other things in a free market work better through competition). I think that this would be very dangerous, and I will explain my line of reasoning below.

First of all, there would still have to be one set of laws that the (private) police are going to uphold (to judge who are criminals and who aren't), and these would probably still be determined by the legislative branch of the government (or perhaps by town councils or whatever on a smaller scale), and eventually brought before a court (either a government court or a private one).

Like the examples I heard on your show, where state laws clash with federal laws and people get arrested for things that aren't even illegal in their state, having more than one set of laws(which would probably happen; there is no reason why there would be just one police corps that is privately owned) upheld by their own private law enforcement gang would ultimately become a near civil war. Just imagine what would happen if one group decided that abortion is murder and that women who abort their fetuses (if that's the correct term) should be tried for it, goes after people who commited a crime in their view, yet who are innocent in the views of perhaps the majority of the area. The other police force would probably see this intervention as unlawful, because they are initiating force against someone who is innocent in their view, and you have a nice dispute on your hands.

(I'm not sure if the proponents of this theory actually want to do something like this, but I am merely trying to point why it wouldn't work)

I think this example is a clear indication of why there should be one law that everyone has to follow, which would make the different "police companies" only differ in how effective they uphold those laws. I think that the proper role of the government is to protect individual rights, and it does so because it derives the right of self-defense from the individuals living in the society in question, and therefore holds a monopoly on the use of (physical) force. I don't think it would be a good idea to have private armies running around in the society (there is a good reason to believe that there would be different groups of policemen funded by certain groups in a society), which to me seems like some sort of gang warfare waiting to happen. This could of course be said for the government police as well, and therefore you would need very strict laws to govern what exactly they can and cannot do during their work, to prevent the abuse of their monopoly on the use of force.

To paraphrase Ayn Rand here (not sure of the exact quote): "An individual citizen may do anything except that which the law explicitly forbids him (which means, in a proper society with a strictly delimited government that they may do anything they want as long as they do not violate the rights of others). The government may do nothing except that which the law allows it to. Of course I don't have to mention to you that this proper scenario is far from reality nowadays, because in the way our countries function (I'm from the Netherlands), it's approaching the scenario where the government can do whatever it wants, and individuals may only act by permission, so to speak.

This brings me to the next point, which is that the necessity of having very strict laws governing what the police can and cannot do creates a very, very dangerous precedent. When you have a governmental policeforce there is a very clear line seperating the two groups, but when you have a privately owned police bound to the same rules, you are now severely restricting what a privately owned company can do. This gives statists of all creeds a huge opening to start swallowing up the freedom in the country.

If you concede (though for valid reasons in this case) that there should be very strict rules regulating what some individuals can do, then you've surrendered the principle of individual rights, and there is no basis left to protect the rest of society. Because, as some may argue in this case, if we can properly restrict what (private) policemen can do so they don't abuse their powers, we should also restrict X group so they don't do Y and hurt other people.

If one of the few functions of the government is to be the police (to protect individuals from those that wish to violate their rights, i.e. criminals) then you can draw a clear line, with the governmental agencies on one side and the rest on the other side, which creates far less opportunity for abuse in this way.

This is something that I thought of in the course of today, so I haven't had much time to test it thoroughly, but I couldn't find any obvious mistakes I made in my thinking, and I wanted to send you this now.

What do you all think about this, and why do you think this is a good or bad thing?

[DavidOdden]

I hate to say this, but I can't untangle what you're saying, so my interpolation may miss your point (like, if you were entirely arguing tongue-in-cheek then you are partly wrong and partly right, but otherwise I think your other-partly right and partly wrong).

At any rate, the first think that has to do is determine what the proper function of the police is. I'm not actually sure how the Netherlands police function so my comments are really based on the nature of policing in the US. Your point about the need for a single set of laws is beyond question, but the police do not create laws, nor do they judge who are criminals: these are the functions of the legislative and judicial branch. The police do not play a role in sorting out jurisdictional conflicts (which should not exist, but that is a separate issue). So the argument that civil war would arise because of conflicting court systems and private police is plainly false, because in fact municipalities, states and the federal government even right now have competing law enforcement agencies (which do indead lead to occasional tense situations, but no actual civil war). What is most important to keep sight of is that this problem exists under a purely governmentally-run police department, without there being private police.The cause of the problem is, in fact, conflicting legal subsystems.

So it must be decided once and for all that abortion is not murder, that profit-making is not a crime, and so on, and there should be no conflicts in the laws. With unanimity on what the law is, there cannot be competing claims of agencies all claiming to be operating under the color of the law. The police do not decide what is right or wrong, the law does. The function of the police is to enforce the law.

You are correct that there should be one law: and the only difference between competing enforcement agencies would be their effectiveness (and possibly area of specialization, e.g. violent crimes vs. cyber crimes require different kinds of police specializations). Then what is really required is a monopoly on the power to order the use of force, and the assurance that only legally ordered force will be used. That assurance cannot come from the fact of prohibiting profit-making businesses from carrying out the orders of courts, it comes from the fact of living in a civilized law-abiding society, not some savage New Jersey / Sicilian mob-run culture (with all due respect to the civilized law-abiding, rights-respecting members of New Jersey and Sicilian society)

It is very clear, from actual observation, that many of the enforcement functions of the government can properly be carried out by private for-profit businesses. This has been proven with private prisons and it is especially obvious with bounty hunters nearly all of whom are private. As long as arrests are truly ordered by the government courts, there can be no conflict in the courts hiring Smith's Deputies vs. Pinkerton's Deputies to enforce the orders of the court. The flaw in the "it will collapse into anarchy" argument is that it falsely presumes that the police agencies get to create their own laws hence there must be a monopoly -- clearly police cannot be allowed to create law.

Yes, you are severely restricting what the private company can do: it can only use force in response to an order by the government to do so. The same is true of an individual who works as a state policeman, who can only use force to carry out the lawful orders given to him by the government. That is the whole point of restricting the use of force.

[Maarten]

Thanks for the reply, it cleared up quite a lot of questions I still had about this.

I see I mixed up certain issues there.

Edited April 14, 2006 by Maarten

[Icarus]

This brings me to the next point, which is that the necessity of having very strict laws governing what the police can and cannot do creates a very, very dangerous precedent. When you have a governmental policeforce there is a very clear line seperating the two groups, but when you have a privately owned police bound to the same rules, you are now severely restricting what a privately owned company can do. This gives statists of all creeds a huge opening to start swallowing up the freedom in the country.

I don't think the answer to encroaching government is to create sweeping prohibitions, even in the interest of making government's boundaries crystal clear. Why not firmly restrict government regulation to law enforcement agencies instead of banning private law enforcement altogether?

Or perhaps the crystal clear line should be drawn at no government regulation of private enterprises, period. Victims of law enforcement abuses could sue for damages, creating a powerful economic incentive for private law enforcement companies to respect the law and citizens' rights.

[konerko14]

How would private police forces make money?

Also, what do you think of Stan Jones'(libertarian) views on police force? His plan is to privatize police, courts, and prisons.

http://mtlp.org/jones/issues_index.html

Edited October 28, 2006 by konerko14

[softwareNerd]

How would private police forces make money?

You should take a look at this thread for more discussion on government financing under Capitalism.

[konerko14]

You should take a look at this thread for more discussion on government financing under Capitalism.

But if they are private police companies, why would taxes still pay for them? Stan Jones(libertarian) suggests having the aggressors of the crimes pay for restitution. Would this work well?

[softwareNerd]

Would this work well?

I don't know. I think it's fine in principle, if the punishment is not totally disproportionate to the crime. Other alternatives may be fine in principle too. Whether it will produce enough money for the government or if the government will require other funds, I cannot say.

Not sure what else Stan Jones says, other than taking money from criminals. I should point out that this does not make the police force "private".

Edited October 28, 2006 by softwareNerd

[DavidOdden]

How would private police forces make money?

Subscriptions and contracts. A private police force is a security-guard firm. Burns and Pinkerton used to be big names, so one of those guys could get the contract for security to this or that bank, hospital, or shopping mall. Check your local Yellow Pages for neighborhood patrols: although I've never engaged their services, I imagine you sign a contract with them for some amount of money and they agree to provide a service (such as property inspection, 2 drive-bys a night, whatever).

[konerko14]

Subscriptions and contracts. A private police force is a security-guard firm. Burns and Pinkerton used to be big names, so one of those guys could get the contract for security to this or that bank, hospital, or shopping mall. Check your local Yellow Pages for neighborhood patrols: although I've never engaged their services, I imagine you sign a contract with them for some amount of money and they agree to provide a service (such as property inspection, 2 drive-bys a night, whatever).

But what about those companies who dont buy contracts with police? What happens with crimes that take place on their property?

Also, why did Ayn Rand think police needed to be run by the govt if they can compete in an industry like any other?

[DavidOdden]

But what about those companies who dont buy contracts with police? What happens with crimes that take place on their property?

Wait, I think you're missing something. I'm describing a thing that actually exists. The contract is between the citizen / business wanting additional protection and the protection agency. This is in addition to, and not instead of, the governments police agency that has ultimate authority (to ensure that the court's decisions are enforced). As an businessman running a security firm, you don't have to buy a contract with the government, you make a contract with the customer. And then your obligation is to provide those basic security needs like patrolling the neighborhood, possibly investigating alarms that go off. The property in question is the property that the citizen owns.

What happens if someone commits a crime on your property? Call the government cop; or call your neighbor is the crime is ongoing, the neighbor is capable, and it's a real emergency. You are not required to have a private cop company protecting your rights in order for your rights to be protected: however, you do have the right to contract for additional protection from a private company. If you find that the government service is not providing the level of protection that you wish you had, you can hire private guards. You should, especially for prevention and other forms of non-force police activities, because the government police cannot provide 24 hour protection service, and should not be checking that your door is locked.

There are two hidden questions that need to come out. First, when the courts order a particular action, which people will brandish the firearms that mean "We will enforce this order"? The second is, what is the proper scope of a police department? The basic political principle is that the use of force must be under the objective and exclusive control of the law. "Control" is very different from "any form of implementation". In the immediate defense of a customer's right to life, a security guard may, as the agent of an individual, use appropriate force in the same way that the individual can. When it somes to more contemplative issues such as prosecuting a person for breaking into a house and stealing a person's goodies, there is no emergency and this prosecution must be conducted by the government, i.e. the courts. The courts can issue an order for a person to be arrested, and courts could assign that task of enforcement to a willing private firm (for example, a bail bondsman).

Also, why did Ayn Rand think police needed to be run by the govt if they can compete in an industry like any other?

I don't believe she ever addressed the specific mechanics of law enforcement and these fine-grained question of whether all forms of crime prevention and justice had to be carried out exclusively by government employees. I doubt very much that she thought that the police should be rattling doors to be sure that they're locked.

I've noticed that the scope of what the police do in the US is much broader than in Norway (as an example). I have never seen cops cruising or walking a beat, or watching traffic (though rumor -- possibly promulgated by the taxi company -- has it that they will get you if you drink and drive, at all). It seems to me that a lot of confusion arises over what the police do, or should do.

[KendallJ]

But if they are private police companies, why would taxes still pay for them? Stan Jones(libertarian) suggests having the aggressors of the crimes pay for restitution. Would this work well?

I think having the object of your forceful restrictions be the same parties that finance you is a dangerous thing, don't you? One could then finance operations by "creating" more criminals. Sort of like speeding ticket quotas, no?

Also, one would also be tempted to then weigh the amount of revenue a criminal brought in with the effort required to bring him in. An odd sort of prioritization system that would have disastrous consequences.

This whole sort of "bring competition into the mix" type of argument illustrates why libertarians don't get it any more than the republicans. Republicans think that they are pro-free market when they advocate outsourcing things like health care, but still have govt channel the revenue stream. Libertarians think they are pro-free market when they outsource even those functions that are proper to the govt. Both misunderstand the concept capitalism within the framework of a political philosophy.

Edited October 29, 2006 by KendallJ