Why can't communities decide on law enforcement or not?

Post Reply New Topic

In light of the current protests against police brutality toward minority individuals, the peaceful protests of which I support, it seems as though there are some who advocate for a removal of law enforcement from communities. There are universities in Minnesota that have severed ties with Minneapolis Police. There are celebrities who are apparently suggesting that law enforcement in general should be "de-funded".

Why couldn't urban communities with a consensus that they didn't want police protection in their communities not be able to have such a change implemented? It's a fact that there are people actively protesting that believe a solution is to remove law enforcement.

Perhaps such communities could contract out private security of their choosing.

One con to the idea I guess that comes to mind is that Fire and Ambulance might refuse to respond to areas that they don't consider to be secured by law enforcement before they respond. Most people choose not to risk their lives while on the job.

Other than that, what would be wrong with urban communities choosing not to have police? Rural and suburban communities would be free to continue to incorporate police/sheriff as a cornerstone of public safety in their communities.

I feel that if these people who want law enforcement removed, actually got their wish, that in a few months they would be regretting it and wanting them to come back, unless maybe not?

Consensus is not always monolithic -- it only takes a simple majority (more than 50%) to form a consensus, just as it takes only a few arsonists, thieves, and vandals to turn an otherwise peaceful protest into a riot, with or without police presence.

Laws laws laws laws.
Communities can’t violate state or federal laws.
Private security can’t enforce laws. And let’s be honest you really want groups like black water who are considered responsible for mass killing of innocents, courotion and just being evil running around America? Mean I’ve never meet anyone other then security guards who whole private security in any good view.

We had university campus guard rape and kill a woman in my state, now they under a strict new law highly limiting them.
Soon as rape and assault go uncontrolled on universities they call 911.

The same people suggesting we get rid of police ar ether same ones saying only the police and military should have guns.

As is with police response time yiur on your own. Hence people own guns. If there’s no police it’ll get worse. You’ll see armed neighborhood watch groups, which I’m sure the people as pointed above would also hate. Idaho did just thst and is being called racist.

Thos celebrities live in mansions surrounded by concrete walls manned by armed society with full auto assault rifles. So they like sure let the world burn I’ll be safe. Peasants issues are so funny to us.

If private police is anything like private fire departments you’ll get this
“Hello 911 someone’s breaking into my house to kill me and rape my daughter we need help”
“Hey sorry we see you didn’t pay your bill this month, you owe use $2,000 if you want to have security support. Do you have a card on hand.... hello? Sorry screaming stop isn’t a valid response. We’re going add $85 call charge to your back owe, good night.”

Places that tried private fire department had just this happen. If you didn’t pay they would come out make sure the fire from your house bringing down didn’t spread to your neighbors who did pay, but not lift a finger to stop the fire at your house until you paid.

It's violating the government's monopoly on violence. Communities that decide to organise their own force could also start deciding on which laws should be enforced, and which not. You could have religious sects decide to take over a community and create a de facto state of their own, like the folloers of Osho did in Rajneeshpuram, in Wasco, Oregon.
The Catholic church, too, keeps telling everyone that they will take care of its pedophile problem by itself, no need for the state. - this can go sideways very fast.
My sincere question: Who would control the community's law-enforcement? Where would you appeal against it?

But to some extent, it's already existing as part of the problem: white communities where law enforcement is also white, enforcing the law on suspicion alone against black people only.

I proclaim my house a community of one. I decree no law enforcement is valid here.

You bring up some good points. Who would control the community's law enforcement?

I'm not sure. I was only asking the questions to get opinions and feedback on the subject.

I'm only postulating, but perhaps members of the actual community could be nominated/elected to serve on a citizen review board and handle the coordination of whatever law enforcement at whatever concentration they desired. The panel and the community at large would then be able to review the health of the community and make changes as necessary. If there was abuse of power, illegal activity on the part of the community directed law enforcement, that could be dealt with as needed an in the same manner as other laws. State and Federal laws wouldn't be nullified in the communities that chose to configure their own policing.

The review process could be a means for gradual change. Example:

In a purely hypothetical scenario, if there actually was a community to which the majority agreed to remove a police force entirely and as a result lawlessness, violence and crime skyrocketed, then the evaluation would prove to anyone who had the ability to reason that such a plan was not a viable solution in the least and that plan could be rapidly abandoned and rightfully acknowledged to be a disaster.

Then the community could us that failure as a basis to build on and correct and then evaluate and so on.

Would that community end up with choosing a police force over time? Highly probable. But at least they'd have the failures and the actual data to illustrate the failures that would be inarguable.

Some cities have good law enforcement agencies, while others (mostly in rural, Southern towns—virtually all of which are MAGA strongholds) absolutely need their police departments abolished.

Well the government would never give into dismantling the police departments, so why even talk about it, when it wouldn't happen? Why worry?

So you're saying the places where people have the most guns also should have no police at all?

It certainly does appear that he believes they can (and should) be permitted to have the citizens take care of maintaining the law in their areas.

And here I was thinking he looked down on those people, when he actually trusts them to do what is best. My appologies for that former, mistaken belief.

I guess an armed society IS a polite society. Guns for everyone!

What would replace the police departments in those "MAGA strongholds"?

Exactly, Magna; I guess he thinks that the South is entirely populated by a bunch of liberals with persecution fetishes who want to escape those oppressive redneck cops or something. Um, no. Not how it works.

Stephen Pinker used to believe the police should be abolished. Then a Canadian town’s police force went on strike for a day. There were six bank robberies that day.

What about the liberal argument that communities should be allowed to choose their own laws? It’s not that crazy. After all, most people are uneasy about the idea of a global state, or if they’re not uneasy then they usually see the benefits of having different rules in different places. Clearly at some level we (usually) accept locals setting their own rules. We just have to decide what the appropriate level is.

I think the issue if we allowed communities to set their own policing would be that some communities would become refuges for murderers and such. There’s a significant part of the far-left that thinks shoplifting and stealing from your place of work are both always justified, for example, and they may seek to form communities to shelter shoplifters. Or perhaps a community might decide to shelter a terrorist. Or maybe it wouldn’t be an active decision, but just because they have no law enforcement they implicitly accept terrorists and murderers hiding there.

When the world thought the Taliban was sheltering Osama Bin Laden, it led to a war that is still ongoing decades later. I might suggest that isn’t a situation we would want to repeat, particularly domestically.

So just as we understand that there are benefits to allowing localities to set their own rules, there are also benefits to agreed common national, supernational, and international law. Laws are easier to enforce, but also easier to comply with. Maybe we can devolve some legal powers while still granting central government the power to intervene in some other aspects.

In the present day I think scrapping police altogether is a folly. Maybe some police departments are so rotten that they need to be restarted, but we still need laws to be enforced on the public dollar. Perhaps in the far future crime will be an irrelevance and we can safely scrap police, but that’s pure fantasy right now.

All in all, it’s better to have police than it is to not have police.

Unbridled freedom, like communism, seems very fine in theory.

But when both have been actually practiced, it has proven to be disastrous.