Turn on thread page Beta

The immorality of anarchism - private police forces watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Anarchists and libertarians often say that under their preferred social system, we could have private police forces, and that we need not have any laws / court systems / constabulary etc

    Okay, let's say England has adopted anarchism, abolished the courts and police. Say you are a wealthy billionaire living in an isolated castle with your own private army of mercenaries to protect you. You molested and then murdered my sister/brother (delete as appropriate).

    I am but a poor farmer, and when I tell my police force that I am subscribed to, they say that my plan doesn't cover travelling to and investigating crimes in far away areas (where my sister/brother had travelled to work). I do manage to convince the company detectives to travel to your castle, where you basically tell them to go away if they value their lives.

    What can be done? You are wealthy and powerful. I'm a poor farmer; I can't afford a private army of my own to force their way into your castle to collect evidence (in which case you might argue, by what right they attempt to enter your property). You won and injustice prevails

    Furthermore, even if they found the evidence, by what right does a private policy force punish/incarcerate someone?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    Anarchists and libertarians often say that under their preferred social system, we could have private police forces, and that we need not have any laws / court systems / constabulary etc

    Okay, let's say England has adopted anarchism, abolished the courts and police. Say you are a wealthy billionaire living in an isolated castle with your own private army of mercenaries to protect you. You molested and then murdered my sister/brother (delete as appropriate).

    I am but a poor farmer, and when I tell my police force that I am subscribed to, they say that my plan doesn't cover travelling to and investigating crimes in far away areas (where my sister/brother had travelled to work). I do manage to convince the company detectives to travel to your castle, where you basically tell them to go away if they value their lives.

    What can be done? You are wealthy and powerful. I'm a poor farmer; I can't afford a private army of my own to force their way into your castle to collect evidence (in which case you might argue, by what right they attempt to enter your property). You won and injustice prevails

    Furthermore, even if they found the evidence, by what right does a private policy force punish/incarcerate someone?
    sigh

    check number 8

    https://mises.org/sites/default/file...jections_2.pdf


    This kind of thing would not happen in a free market.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    sigh

    check number 8

    https://mises.org/sites/default/file...jections_2.pdf

    This kind of thing would not happen in a free market.
    I just read that apologia, it's pretty weak. He doesn't say it wouldn't happen, he just says it's worse in the current system.

    He then goes off on an incoherent rant about how a rich person would have to bribe people. He seems to completely ignore the obvious scenario of the rich man simply putting a gun to the poor man's head, and there's no court system to say that is illegal. The rich man has more guns than the poor man.

    What would stop a rich man from kidnapping and enslaving a poor man? Nothing, there is no overriding court system to stop it.

    The document you linked is incoherent, poorly written and fails to actually address the concern, as opposed to fabricating some bizarrely benign and laughable scenarios of his own and then discrediting them (aka a strawman)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    This kind of thing would not happen in a free market.
    What stops the rich man and his followers putting a gun to the poor man's head, and saying "Do X"
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    What stops the rich man and his followers putting a gun to the poor man's head, and saying "Do X"
    Because that kind of behaviour wouldn't be tolerated in a free society.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    Anarchists and libertarians often say that under their preferred social system, we could have private police forces
    As an anarchist, I most certainly do not say that. I want the police gone, not privatised. And I certainly don't consider privatised police an anarchist proposal.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of Libertarians argue that the police force should be privatised, yet still paid for through a tax or insurance system. Much the same as NHS privatisation, it may still be free at the point of use, just ran by a private company. If the private company isn't up to task the contract can be given to another company when it expires, ensuring competition to ensure efficiency and competition.

    Anarcho-capitalists are more likely to be the ones suggesting the system you propose. Their idea is to tackle the concept of the state's monopoly on force and justice, striking straight at Hobbesian absolutism of the sovereign/state. Private courts and individuals with agreed legal parameters would be better able to administer justice, and defend and prevent crime against persons or property. Market knows best and all that jazz. Of course in such a world corporatism would run rife, and would replace the state as the primary powers, and with their capital and influence would be able to pervert justice in their interests. Likewise access to police and legal services to those at the bottom would be restricted, as there is no state to subside it.

    All interesting stuff. But thankfully most people understand the need for the state to retain some kind of power; especially in the matters of justice, law enforcement and criminal law.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    As an anarchist, I most certainly do not say that. I want the police gone, not privatised. And I certainly don't consider privatised police an anarchist proposal.
    You want what now? How on earth would that work.

    .........

    As the OP, i find the idea ludicrous and as somebody that believes in justice, slightly offensive.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    Anarchists and libertarians often say that under their preferred social system, we could have private police forces, and that we need not have any laws / court systems / constabulary etc
    You have massively misunderstood most of anarchism there. It isn't just some variant of capitalist free for all with no or next to no state. They wouldn't support private police forces since most forms of anarchism are apposed to the command structures of private organizations. Private "police" forces are worse than state ones for anarchists, at least a state police force is accountable to the inbuilt democracy of a nation state, no matter how limited that is.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    You want what now? How on earth would that work.
    Well, a number of proposed ways. What I find quite interesting is the current effort in Rojava, in which the formal police have been abolished, but everyone (or nearly everyone, don't think they've quite managed it yet) has been given police training.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Well, a number of proposed ways. What I find quite interesting is the current effort in Rojava, in which the formal police have been abolished, but everyone (or nearly everyone, don't think they've quite managed it yet) has been given police training.
    I'm all for the state having less power, but it is the state's duty to protect its citizens both from internal threats like criminals, or foreign threats like aggressive nations, the latter are thankfully less common. But let me propose a hypothetical situation to you, because I'm honestly curious here.

    Say I'm walking home from school one day, and three men attack me in a park. They're stronger than me, so they manage to wrestle away my bag, steal my phone, and make off with my wallet. I see their faces and remember them, but in a world without police to go and persecute them after an investigation, what would I do? How would I get my possessions back, or be reimbursed by the criminals who robbed me?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    You have massively misunderstood most of anarchism there. It isn't just some variant of capitalist free for all with no or next to no state. They wouldn't support private police forces since most forms of anarchism are apposed to the command structures of private organizations. Private "police" forces are worse than state ones for anarchists, at least a state police force is accountable to the inbuilt democracy of a nation state, no matter how limited that is.
    No they aren't. The police are not as accountable as they would be in a free market based system.

    Private defence agencies would have be liable for their actions.

    The state on the other hand is not.
    When police break down doors in order to stop peaceful people using certain types of plants or to violently assault people who are apparently "illegal" (immigrants), they do not have to worry about consequences.

    Police officers have murdered protesters and are punished but again a private group would be severely punished (most likely meaning they can never do business again ) for hiring such a violent person.

    The individuals officers may be punished by the provider, ie the state is not.
    Any compensation provided is not even their own money but the taxpayers.
    Private groups would have pay with their own money, not others they have taken involuntary.


    In a private system the burden of proof would much higher. If a private defence group broke into someone's house to apprehend a wrongdoer they better be well damn sure they have the right person.

    If not, they have violated someone's property with no just cause. They gain much bad reputation. They would be fully liable for all the damage they caused, and would not be able business unless they.

    When there is not a monopoly on the use of force, force is much less likely to be used because of the consequences of others using defensive force.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grantland)
    I'm all for the state having less power, but it is the state's duty to protect its citizens both from internal threats like criminals, or foreign threats like aggressive nations, the latter are thankfully less common. But let me propose a hypothetical situation to you, because I'm honestly curious here.

    Say I'm walking home from school one day, and three men attack me in a park. They're stronger than me, so they manage to wrestle away my bag, steal my phone, and make off with my wallet. I see their faces and remember them, but in a world without police to go and persecute them after an investigation, what would I do? How would I get my possessions back, or be reimbursed by the criminals who robbed me?
    You would tell your dispute resolution organisation (DRO) and they would investigate what has happened and reimburse you for your loss.

    http://pzacad.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_A...calanarchy.pdf

    See page 117 , while it gives a rapist as an example it just as applicable to any crime.

    DROs would tell the accused they must comply or face sanctions which have been agreed by the DRO/s and other companies. If they refused it would surely be admission of guilt.

    Of course, if after the investigation their was not enough evidence to prosecute (which can happen in the current police system), the accuser is likely to pay compensation.

    The accused's own DRO may get involved to make sure a fairer settlement in given for the false accusation.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If we have private police/security forces then they will have a huge amount of bargaining power with their wages.

    If there is no state force to protect private property then the private security forces can pretty much name their price and the wealthy will be forced to accept it.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    If we have private police/security forces then they will have a huge amount of bargaining power with their wages.

    If there is no state force to protect private property then the private security forces can pretty much name their price and the wealthy will be forced to accept it.
    It will be a competitive system....Some providers may offer the same service for a cheaper cost.

    The state doesn't protect private property as it steals from people and prevents them from refusing service to people like making them bake gay marriage cakes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    Because that kind of behaviour wouldn't be tolerated in a free society.
    :lol: You do realise how contradictory that comment is?

    You're saying it wouldn't be tolerated; who is going to stop it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    They wouldn't support private police forces since most forms of anarchism are apposed to the command structures of private organizations.
    Err, they wouldn't have to "support" it; this private mercenary army would be what the billionaire has decided to do off his own back, and you would have no right to interfere in the way he is disposing of his property (using it to pay mercenaries)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    The state doesn't protect private property as it steals.
    I think you're confused about the meaning of the word "steal"

    What thief allows his victim a say in how the loot is distributed?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    As an anarchist, I most certainly do not say that. I want the police gone, not privatised. And I certainly don't consider privatised police an anarchist proposal.
    This isn't a "privatised" police force. The police are gone, abolished, and then a billionaire decides to create his own private force to protect his lands

    What are you going to do about that? Nothing, you have no right to tell this billionaire what he can and can't do on his own land with his own money
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    :lol: You do realise how contradictory that comment is?

    You're saying it wouldn't be tolerated; who is going to stop it?
    The majority who oppose violence, theft and rape.
    Do you think without police people would just let wrongdoers take what they wanted?

    In a system before any man made law there was still some sort of natural law.
    Man could have not survived and formed groups and eventually civilisation if murder was permissible.
 
 
 

2,825

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.