Defund the Police?
Yes and No.
The Defund the Police (DTP) movement raises an interesting question for libertarians. On the one hand, libertarians abhor excessive police violence, against minorities and generally. On the other hand, libertarians, and others, might worry that slashing police budgets could increase crime.
The way to balance these concerns is to repeal laws against victimless crimes, meaning bans against drugs, sex work, vagrancy, loitering, and the like. These laws serve no role in protecting people from violence or theft, and they generate their own negatives: underground markets, corruption, violence, and excessive overdoses.
In addition, laws against victimless crime exacerbate racism by empowering those police with racist attitudes to impose their views on minorities.
In a homicide investigation, police and prosecutors must prove means, motives, and opportunity; they cannot just say, “This person looks like a murderer, so lock him up.”
Under prohibitions of drugs or sex work, police can and do assert, “This teenager looks like someone who deals drugs, so I can stop and frisk.” Or, they demand sexual favors from alleged prostitutes. If some police are racist, this power gets applied in racially disproportionate ways.
Racism can also arise even when police address real crime (e.g., the Charles Stuart case). For violence and theft, however, procedural checks and balances, and the presence of multiple observers, lowers the scope for racism. Legalizing victimless crimes also helps attract police who want to serve and protect rather than “bust heads.”
DTP shares this perspective, opposing laws against buying or selling drugs, sex work, or nuisance offenses.
Libertarians and DTP do differ on a related issue: how to use the funds freed up by legalizations. DTP would transfer these to treatment and other social services; libertarians would lower taxes instead.
Libertarians and DTP nevertheless agree on a crucial issue: to make policing less racist, society must eliminate laws that criminalizes private, consensual behavior.
Hi Adam. I agree with Rothbard that private police can (and do) provide some functions currently addressed, imperfectly, by government police. But I think there are reasons to see the private as an incomplete substitute. 1. private police will be difficult for the poor to employ. maybe basic protection is something that everyone should have. 2. private police might mainly SHIFT the targets of criminals, rather than providing deterrence / incapacitation. None of this denies all the problems with government police. Still, makes me think the ideal approach is to start by scaling back the aspects of current law/police that is clearly counter-productive, which will then make it easier to determine if we can go even further, a la rothbard.
Thanks for writing,
jeff
Hi Stephen. Thanks for the comment. I fully agree with your broad point: paying taxes to support true public goods is completely consistent with individual liberty. In the case of drug abuse treatment, however, I think the case is weak. First, most of the negatives of misuse fall on the user (or close family members, but I tend to think we should lump those together). Second, the evidence that government subsidized treatment actually helps people quit, or get jobs, or whatever, is really weak. Third, the issue for the DTP position is not whether we should have any such subsidy, but whether we definitely need more; that seems even harder to defend. Finally, I fear that convincing non-libertarians to BOTH legalize drugs AND pay for treatment makes the debate even more difficult. I would still engage if the empirical case for treatment were solid, but it's not.
I probably should have addressed all of this. Maybe a good topic for another post.
all the best,
jeff