Practical Libertarianism: Peace Keepers vs. Police

[Carmelbythecorn]

I don't know much about the author, but he does make some very interesting and valid points.

Practical Libertarianism: Peace Keepers vs. Police » Eric Peters Autos

This is not a police bashing article at all (nor is it intended to be) it is a thought provoking article about how far from freedom out society has strayed and what a free society might look like.

I might even put this out there to begin with...and save someone the trouble...

 

[steveh_131]

Good article.

Unfortunately, most here are too terrified to even consider living in a world where they can't attempt to legislatively control the behavior people around them.

 

[mrjarrell]

Nice article. Well written and thought out. Something most of us could easily live with. Can't wait for the naysayers to chime in or our resident might makes right troll.

 

[9mmfan]

Very well written article. I certainly could live with that.

 

[Destro]

so basically if people don't do bad things, there is no need for the police....why didn't I think of that?? The enemy of a libertarian is a man who thinks for himself

 

[88GT]

so basically if people don't do bad things, there is no need for the police....why didn't I think of that?? The enemy of a libertarian is a man who thinks for himself

In what society do people not do bad things?

I get what the author is saying, but his connection between a society that operates on the motto of "self-ownership and non-agression" and the idea that police are no longer necessary is fallacious.

The only righteous way to hold "miscreants accountable" is to have in place a body of law that provide the due process for righting wrongs. The alternative is an arbitrary, non-uniform system of dealing with the violations of society. How do you hold a murderer accountable for his harm to another if you have no formal means to judge his behavior? Laws will always be necessary for any society. Even the most basic tribal societies have laws. And they have law enforcers.

Authoritarians aren't the only ones who need to check the premises. The author could do a fair bit of that himself. He makes an illogical characterization of police and then ignores the fact that law-enforcers can exist in his libertarian society because the issue isn't the presence of law enforcers, but the content of what they are enforcing.

 

[jrogers]

"Practical Libertarianism?"

 

[Liberty Sanders]

In what society do people not do bad things?

I get what the author is saying, but his connection between a society that operates on the motto of "self-ownership and non-agression" and the idea that police are no longer necessary is fallacious.

The only righteous way to hold "miscreants accountable" is to have in place a body of law that provide the due process for righting wrongs. The alternative is an arbitrary, non-uniform system of dealing with the violations of society. How do you hold a murderer accountable for his harm to another if you have no formal means to judge his behavior? Laws will always be necessary for any society. Even the most basic tribal societies have laws. And they have law enforcers.

Authoritarians aren't the only ones who need to check the premises. The author could do a fair bit of that himself. He makes an illogical characterization of police and then ignores the fact that law-enforcers can exist in his libertarian society because the issue isn't the presence of law enforcers, but the content of what they are enforcing.

Agreed...the problem is not the existence of the police but the nature of the laws they enforce. If the laws themselves reflected libertarian thinking police would have no opportunity to violate the natural rights of citizens.

The rule should be a simple one...citizens may do as they like as long as they do no tangible harm to other citizens.

The police will always be needed to deal with true predators.

 

[steveh_131]

He makes an illogical characterization of police and then ignores the fact that law-enforcers can exist in his libertarian society because the issue isn't the presence of law enforcers, but the content of what they are enforcing.

That is pretty much what I took from the article. Give them a different name and a different job scope.

It all made sense to me.