LIBERTARIANplace

Part Two, Cont'd.

Once we have stepped outside of that box it is easy to be even more creative. Why, after all, must an entire municipality have only one police force? Why couldn't there be competing police companies within any market? People could choose which company they wish to protect them. People could choose a level of protection from a menu of choices. Some may want twenty-four hour on-site security, others may want hourly drive-by's. Others may want personal protection to accompany them wherever they go. Others may elect to limit their service to post-crime investigation. Some may want a private equivalent of a 911 service, coming only when called. Some may choose to act as their own "police" by carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense and not pay for anything.

Certainly there are some traditional police functions that might require continuity or networking within a jurisdiction or a group of jurisdictions. These functions could be provided by other police companies that would provide coordination and overlay services, or perhaps by a government umbrella agency. The only limits are our imaginations.  

Whole cities, council districts, neighborhoods, streets or subdivisions may want to band together to purchase basic police services. Businesses may want to band together as Chambers of Commerce or associations by street, to provide extra security for their business district in order gain a competitive edge over another business district that might be perceived as higher risk. Everyone, individually or collectively, could choose the provider and the plan that suits them best and pay for it. (Remember, there would be no property tax or sales tax so there would be funds available to pay for services to protect property and person.) This might sound chaotic and inefficient but markets are beautifully efficient. Free markets have a way of creating efficiencies naturally that no monopoly whether public or private can come close to.

More importantly, market choices and decentralization of power are two important ways of reducing the likelihood of corruption, and ill-equipped to imagine anyone but government performing certain functions, if we allow ourselves to imagine the possibilities outside of the proverbial box it is more than conceivable that allowing the free market to provide its checks and balances what have previously been government monopolies, we may enjoy greater efficiency, less abuse, less vulnerability to corruption, and greater accountability.

Once we have stepped outside of that box it is easy to be even more creative. Why, after all, must an entire municipality have only one police force? Why couldn't there be competing police companies within any market? People could choose which company they wish to protect them. People could choose a level of protection from a menu of choices. Some may want twenty-four hour on-site security, others may want hourly drive-by's. Others may want personal protection to accompany them wherever they go. Others may elect to limit their service to post-crime investigation. Some may want a private equivalent of a 911 service, coming only when called. Some may choose to act as their own "police" by carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense and not pay for anything.

Certainly there are some traditional police functions that might require continuity or networking within a jurisdiction or a group of jurisdictions. These functions could be provided by other police companies that would provide coordination and overlay services, or perhaps by a government umbrella agency. The only limits are our imaginations.  

Whole cities, council districts, neighborhoods, streets or subdivisions may want to band together to purchase basic police services. Businesses may want to band together as Chambers of Commerce or associations by street, to provide extra security for their business district in order gain a competitive edge over another business district that might be perceived as higher risk. Everyone, individually or collectively, could choose the provider and the plan that suits them best and pay for it. (Remember, there would be no property tax or sales tax so there would be funds available to pay for services to protect property and person.) This might sound chaotic and inefficient but markets are beautifully efficient. Free markets have a way of creating efficiencies naturally that no monopoly whether public or private can come close to.

More importantly, market choices and decentralization of power are two important ways of reducing the likelihood of corruption, and of quickly identifying it and rooting it out when discovered-- all within the
natural function of the markets.Quite simply, if people have choice and if service providers have
accountability (the byproduct of choice) those who do a poor job, who charge too much for the work they do no matter the quality of service provided, or who abuse their power, are quickly punished or driven out of business or both not by government sanction or prosecution, or even civil litigation, but by consumer selection.

And now, lets revisit a comment thrown out there a few paragraphs ago: the private use of firearms for protection. Although this idea is a straw-dog among most self-described political "liberals," the widespread utilization of the right to keep and bear arms would also increase safety and security of individuals, communities and businesses and decrease the need for outside services to defend person and property. If everyone who wanted a gun, owned one, carried one, concealed when necessary, there would be a natural disincentive to aggression.

Again, I  defer to my Libertarian mentor, Mary Ruwart, from Short Answers to the Tough Questions (link to site).

Each of us has the right to defend ourselves against force of the threat of force. If I point a gun at you, you needn't wait until I fire to disable me.

If you attack me, even threaten me, I may be carrying a gun.This knowledge on the part of a potential aggressor would be a much greater deterrent to violent crime than the threat of prison or Capital Punishment.

There may be legitimate concerns about accidents involving handguns in private hands but I guarantee (and challenge you to prove me wrong-- a person who would have been right there with you in this argument only a few months ago) that the number of deaths and serious injuries as a result of misuse of privately owned handguns is trivial compared to the number of murders and assaults that would be prevented in a given sample, if everyone had their own firearm. Gun control advocates (again again, I was one of them) will claim that the number of deaths from accidents involving handguns in private homes is greater than the number of murders by intruders but figures lie and liars figure. This is apples and oranges. The appropriate comparison is the number of accidental deaths/serious injuries involving privately owned handguns and the number of victims of violent crime where no gun was available to the victim for self-defense. That is apples and apples.

And, while this may have seemed preposterous before the second Bush administration, is there anyone who values Liberty who can't imagine the scenario in which an average innocent citizen may need a firearm to protect him or herself from the government or the use of force in its name?

What about International aggression? How do we protect ourselves from this threat except with a strong military armed with all the latest weapons of mass destruction. Mary Ruwart, once again: (link to site).

Our best defense is to have no enemies. (Beyond this a) Libertarian military would probably be multi-layered and have several different sources of funding. Local militia might be volunteers or be supported by community fund raising. Professional, full-time regiments might accept paid assignments in other countries a s a part of their training. The military might operate a business in peace time that dovetails (excuse the pun!) with their defense function. Such efforts would likely be quite sufficient if we were not trying to police the world...

And what about domestic terrorism? Dr. Ruwart:

In a Libertarian society, you (or your police) would be entitled to stop anyone who threatened you with a weapon of any kind... Most terrorists, however don't announce their intentions. They can create weapons from the humblest of materials, making apprehension almost impossible... Most terrorists are reacting to ill treatment (real or imagined) by our government. As government has grown, so has terrorism. Minimizing government, as libertarians suggest, might be the best way to disarm terrorists.

But beyond this, Dr. Ruwart also states, that an armed citizenry goes a long way toward protecting  a nation from threats within and without. Why was Switzerland able to maintain its neutrality with the Axis powers all around her? An armed citizenry. Every male citizen over the age of 18 in Switzerland is a member of the Swiss military. That gives house to house warfare a whole new meaning.

Bottom line: power to the people, as they/we used to say back in the sixties, with a whole different meaning. Little did we know how right we were!   -jwh-