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.
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.
Some aspects of outsourcing make good sense: lots of parking and traffic enforcement could be done by non-police, non-armed civilians. Maybe also emergency calls for mental health? Less convincingly, domestic violence?
but although some libertarians / anarchists seem to imagine a world with no government criminal justice activity, I find that hard to understand? Unless there is threat of force / jail for violence and serious theft, I am not sure how private mechanisms enforce?
Rothbard wrote in For a New Liberty that private police would essentially function like security guards & be hired by clients according to the level of protection they desire, ranging from one-time conflict resolution to 24-hour bodyguard service.
I worked a couple of decades for a major US defense contractor, sometimes performing work that in other countries would have been handled by government workers. The US Government realizes that it is much more efficient (for cost, performance, and accountability) to outsource many roles to contractors. We had quarterly metrics, and plenty of competition ready to grab our contracts if we faltered. If I personally screwed up, the USG couldn't "fire" me, but they could say they wanted me off the program, and they could yank the company's contract. The company might then lay us off, for want of work. This sort of accountability engaged the attention of managers up the chain, unlike in our typical police forces.
Even if outsourced, policing in this scenario would still remain a government responsibility, with a government policing contract manager. I am certainly not suggesting (here) any change to the current *financing* of police (except of course for eat-what-you-kill asset forfeiture).
Hi Steve. I agree that in many cases government can be more efficient by hiring private contractors rather than running the operation itself. A crucial question not addressed by that perspective though is exactly what things the government should do in the first place. Thus, it makes total sense to hire private firms to clean a courthouse. But that approach does not resolve whether government should using its courts for laws that libertarians would oppose in the first place. In the US, I think we're moderately good on the first issue; pretty bad on the second.
Jeffrey: I agree with everything in your post today regarding repeal of victimless crimes except the very last. You claim that "libertarians" oppose shifting of police funding to drug treatment programs, etc. and that libertarians prefer simply lowering taxes. I believe in the principles of liberty, and I do not find that belief to be in contradiction with my willingness to support taxation to pay for public goods from which I recognize that I benefit and that can be provided more efficiently through government management than through purely private market transactions. Roads and national defense are obvious examples, but public programs for education, mental health treatment, and drug addiction withdrawal assistance financed by my taxes also benefit me indirectly, even if I do not consume those government subsidized services myself. REB
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
Some aspects of outsourcing make good sense: lots of parking and traffic enforcement could be done by non-police, non-armed civilians. Maybe also emergency calls for mental health? Less convincingly, domestic violence?
but although some libertarians / anarchists seem to imagine a world with no government criminal justice activity, I find that hard to understand? Unless there is threat of force / jail for violence and serious theft, I am not sure how private mechanisms enforce?
Rothbard wrote in For a New Liberty that private police would essentially function like security guards & be hired by clients according to the level of protection they desire, ranging from one-time conflict resolution to 24-hour bodyguard service.
I worked a couple of decades for a major US defense contractor, sometimes performing work that in other countries would have been handled by government workers. The US Government realizes that it is much more efficient (for cost, performance, and accountability) to outsource many roles to contractors. We had quarterly metrics, and plenty of competition ready to grab our contracts if we faltered. If I personally screwed up, the USG couldn't "fire" me, but they could say they wanted me off the program, and they could yank the company's contract. The company might then lay us off, for want of work. This sort of accountability engaged the attention of managers up the chain, unlike in our typical police forces.
Even if outsourced, policing in this scenario would still remain a government responsibility, with a government policing contract manager. I am certainly not suggesting (here) any change to the current *financing* of police (except of course for eat-what-you-kill asset forfeiture).
Hi Steve. I agree that in many cases government can be more efficient by hiring private contractors rather than running the operation itself. A crucial question not addressed by that perspective though is exactly what things the government should do in the first place. Thus, it makes total sense to hire private firms to clean a courthouse. But that approach does not resolve whether government should using its courts for laws that libertarians would oppose in the first place. In the US, I think we're moderately good on the first issue; pretty bad on the second.
Jeffrey: I agree with everything in your post today regarding repeal of victimless crimes except the very last. You claim that "libertarians" oppose shifting of police funding to drug treatment programs, etc. and that libertarians prefer simply lowering taxes. I believe in the principles of liberty, and I do not find that belief to be in contradiction with my willingness to support taxation to pay for public goods from which I recognize that I benefit and that can be provided more efficiently through government management than through purely private market transactions. Roads and national defense are obvious examples, but public programs for education, mental health treatment, and drug addiction withdrawal assistance financed by my taxes also benefit me indirectly, even if I do not consume those government subsidized services myself. REB
How about outsourcing/privatizing the police?