Laws Cause Police Killings

Leftists pretend to be concerned about the aggressive actions of police officers, which leads to outcomes like we saw recently in Minnesota and Colorado. Just this week, Paige Pierce Schmidt was shot and killed by police in Delta CO, as was Duante Wright in Brooklyn Center MN.

Police kill roughly 1,400 Americans every year, or 26 per week on average.

A disproportionate number -- about a third -- are black; the rest are mostly white.

At core, it is the plethora of useless and countless laws, like the prohibitions on drugs, prostitution, gambling, and, increasingly, guns -- laws that were either written or are supported by the left within the past century -- that led to Wright's and Schmidt's tragic and unnecessary deaths.

It is understood that Leftists wish to promote systemic problems that they can later riot over. It's called "job security" for progs.

"Good laws" and bad laws, both, are GOING to be enforced with force, no matter what you demand. At some level, everyone is aware of that. Anywhere you have an intersection between two positions you favor, when those positions are at odds, you have the potential -- and in fact, the high probability -- of those laws being upheld through the use of force. Up to, and including, death.

Mr. Wright, for example -- was in violation of gun control laws -- which almost all Leftists profess to favor (I say "profess" because the Left has never been shy about arming other Leftists and shooting the opposition -- as has been happening in Venezuela for the past decade). The traffic stop of Wright also was made under some dubious pretexts; and then the escalation of force was initiated because of a warrant relating to said gun laws.

Wright was within his Constitutionally-guaranteed right to carry a firearm.

You can't have the gun control you love, without the deadly force by police that you don't love.

Only Libertarians have a consistent position: We are opposed to police violence that was brought to bear against Mr. Wright -- but we are also absolutely opposed to the gun laws that were being enforced against him in the first place.

You simply cannot demand that the police treat black people with dignity and respect or hell, but then also support right-violating laws that we then expect the police to enforce. It simply won't work the way you think it will.

Libertarians acknowledge there will be some level of laws for the foreseeable future -- at least until a lot more people choose to reject the initiation of force and become Libertarians. But in the meantime, we demand that laws be kept to a minimum and that they will be enforced only when there is an actual human victim. These two steps would go far towards a rational, more peaceful approach to reducing harm caused by police.

------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Libertarian * 800-ELECT-US * http://www.LP.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Written by Marc Montoni <AMCAmbassador@gmail.com>, April 2021.  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
------------------------------------------------------------

Halle Shootings Prove The Gun-Control Fraud is Over

In the media recently (October 9), two people were killed in a planned rampage murder in Halle, Germany on 9 October, 2019. Two more people were seriously injured

and rushed to the hospital. The attack was originally planned to massacre Jews at a local synagogue, by a 27 year old national Socialist.

What has been left out of most of the media accounts, however, is that the weapons and ammunition used were all HOME-MADE.  Check out the story on Ammoland; or see the story by Mike Landsay upon which the Ammoland story was based.

The firearms were homemade, the ammunition was homemade, the explosives were homemade.

He killed two innocent people and injured others even with his crude ammunition and makeshift firearms.

This part of the story has been largely supressed because it reveals an inconvenient truth: The genie is out of the bag.

There are far more machine tools in the US than there are in Germany, and far more mechanics who can use them.

The designs for firearms and ammunition are well-known and documented extensively.

Besides the homebrew angle, the same corruptocrats who can't keep drugs from crossing the border aren't going to be any better at keeping guns from crossing the border.

The only thing that will change as legal guns and ammunition are further restricted, is that more and more criminals will get into the lucrative business of building, smuggling and selling them. Prices will go up, more cops will be corrupted (eg, Mexican police guns are used in almost all cartel shoot-em-ups), and violence over trading turf will increase.

The Left is going to have to come to terms with the fact that guns are in the wild, and from this point on, they always will be. It will need to acknowledge all of the following:

- Gun control doesn’t stop a madman with murderous intent.

- It isn’t the object but rather the person using it that is the problem.

- You cannot legislate your way to safety by assuming the guilt of every citizen.

- Gun control has failed.

All gun control is unconstitutional. It is also ineffective and counterproductive. And, most importantly, it infringes upon the right of all individuals to freely acquire, own, and bear any property they wish -- including property related to supporting their right of self defense.

If someone truly cannot be trusted to own or carry firearms, then they should not be free to roam at all -- they should be in prison.

End the war gun owners.  Defend the right of individuals to defend themselves from criminal individuals and criminal governments.   Repeal all federal, state, and local gun laws.  Stop meddling in the private and voluntary affairs of free individuals.

Vote Libertarian.

------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Libertarian * 800-ELECT-US * http://www.LP.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Written by Marc Montoni <AMCAmbassador@gmail.com>, October, 2019.  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

------------------------------------------------------------

For more information about the Radical Caucus, see www.LPRadicalCaucus.org or see the Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/2497146127/  .
------------------------------------------------------------

A Libertarian Response to The Fat-State Address by Jared Polis, 2019

In his first "state of the state" address, new Colorado governor Jared Polis proved something: Namely, he is just another in a long line of tax-spend-regulate-subsidize-suppress-penalize political hacks who think they have any moral right to govern the affairs of private individuals.

Libertarians in Colorado listened, where we could stay awake, to Polis' comments with same understanding we have had with every other new governor:

• Taxes will go up
• Spending will fatten
• Regulations will suppress more and more entrepreneurs
• More individual rights will be trampled upon
• Transparency will fade further
• More citizens will be killed by police enforcing ever more new laws
• The war on the recreational choices of individuals will rage on and expand
• Health care will be further taken over by the state
• Bureaucrats will expand their drive to choose economic winners and losers
• Colorado will continue to become the exclusive playground of the upper classes

In short, Polis will do all of the same things that every other governor has done.

Some Libertarian reactions to Polis' fat-state policy desires:

THE ECONOMY

POLIS: "Our economy is strong. From agriculture and outdoor recreation to aerospace, bioscience, energy, and cannabis, we've watched industries succeed and create jobs."

LIBERTARIANS: Meanwhile, the political class, including Polis, have endeavored mightily to destroy and marginalize industries they don't like, ruining the jobs those sectors supported.

Libertarians call for a free, unfettered market economy and elimination of regulations that stifle growth and eliminate hobs.

BIPARTISANSHIP

POLIS: "We've become a model for how we can put politics aside and work together."

LIBERTARIANS: That's what everyone is afraid of.  Thinking individuals know that whenever politicians agree with one another, your right, liberties, and property are at risk.  Gridlock preserves liberty to some degree.

The only reason that statesmen should put aside differences and work together is to repeal and eliminate the Byzantine layers of law and bureaucracy in Colorado.  The state code could be halved, and no one would die and everyone would benefit.

THE POOR AND MARGINALIZED

POLIS: "Despite all of our progress, far too many people are either barely getting by, or falling behind."

LIBERTARIANS: Well, when you increase the tax and regulatory load on taxpayers, some of them break and can no longer keep up.

The cure for that is to eliminate the load on the taxpayer by eliminating taxes.

BROADBAND INTERNET

POLIS: Seeks local government takeover of broadband internet.

LIBERTARIANS: Competing with the private sector is never a good idea.

And what happens when "communities" decide they can disconnect or deplatform individuals or groups who wish to freely exercise their right to freedom of speech or religion?

It's bad enough that private-sector entities sometimes refuse to allow uncensored speech (much of that so-called "private sector" censorship, by the way, is driven by government pressure).

It will be much worse if there is only the government monopoly provider and no other outlet for free speech.  And cost per user will skyrocket, same as with everything else bureaucrats take over.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM

POLIS: "We [must] address the inequities in our criminal justice system. That means tackling discriminatory practices that make people of color, individuals living with mental illness, and Coloradans experiencing poverty more likely to face incarceration. And it means working to make sure Coloradans who do serve prison or jail time are able to live a dignified and fulfilling life after they've paid their debt to society."

LIBERTARIANS: The biggest single issue looming over criminal justice is the number of nonviolent drug offenders who go through the system.

Libertarians suggest the one reform that would eliminate much of the injustice of our current syustem is to fully decriminalize all victimless crimes, including all recreational drugs, sex work, and gambling.  It's time to end our national experiment with the Progressive Era's national socialist legacy of Prohibition.  Prohibition has been a disaster, costly in both human lives and in expense.  It has decimated several generations of young men in minority communities -- which were revenue-farming targets for law enforcement for decades prior to Prohibition.

Private, consensual behavior is none of the government's business. 

Ending state prosecution of drug and other victimless offenses will eliminate the need for many drug warrior jobs, allowing government employed individuals currently fighting that utterly unwinnable war to seek productive work in the wealth-producing private sector.

EARLY CHILDHOOD INDOCTRINATION

POLIS: "[We will introduce] state-funded early childhood education."

LIBERTARIANS: Hasn't government done enough to our children?  In Colorado the average public school spends a little over $10,000 for each child already, and the results are sub-par.  Meanwhile, homeschoolers and private schools continue to outstrip their government indoctrination centers' results.  The real reason for the push to get kids into the government's indoctrination system earlier and earlier is... well, to increase the amount of time the state has to indoctrinate.

The same kind of bureaucrats who can't seem to deliver mail or keep violent criminals locked up should not be trusted around children.

PARENTAL LEAVE

LIBERTARIANS: Polis' budget package coming up on the 15th includes a formal request to provide paid parental leave for all state employees.

He also wants to force the private sector to establish a paid family and medical leave program.

So he's going to make it more expensive for the private sector to pay their own employees, and then he's going make sure they pay for his patronage of Colorado bureaucrats too.

Where does he think that money is going to come from?

Libertarians call for government to stop regulating everything in life.  Whether one's employer provides leave or not is a private matter that should be left to negotiation by employers and employees.

As for leave for government employees, it would cost a lot less if government employees simply left.

HEALTH CARE

POLIS: Wants to lower "the outrageous cost of health care".

LIBERTARIANS: The only way to do that is to get the fickle fingers of bureaucrats completely out of the health care pie.  A good start would be to eliminate the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, end all government funding of or subsidies to the health care industry, and begin eliminating state licensure so that private certification can take over.Perhaps the most laughable of Polis' demands is his proposed "Office of Saving People Money on Health Care".

Maybe this will buck the trend of government agencies being created for a purpose but then having the exact opposite effect in reality (and growing to gargantuan proportions in the process), but that's probably a pipe dream.

PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS

POLIS: Wants to "address the appalling costs of prescription drugs", and cites the factoid that "Canada has the same drugs from the same manufacturing plants that we have here in the United States; but often at one-half, one-third, yes, even one-quarter of the cost."

LIBERTARIANS: And the reason for that is Canada's government lets those manufacturers sell their drugs there only at the prices the government sets -- edicts which do not take into account drug development costs.  So when Colorado and other states start buying drugs from Canada and elsewhere at regulated prices, and re-importing them here, expect the pipeline of new life-saving drugs to start drying up.

Polis is just like every other politician in that respect: They are too shallow and ignorant to look for the real reasons why things are the way they are.

ENVIRONMENT, CLIMATE DEBATE, GREEN ENERGY

POLIS: Wants "good-paying jobs in the clean-energy sector that can never be outsourced."

LIBERTARIANS: This is an example of politicians thinking they have any moral right, or the authority, to pick winners and losers.

What the green energy sector needs is for the government to get completely out of meddling in any kind of energy -- green or not.  Eliminate the subsidies, eliminate the penalties, and protect property rights, and the markets will gravitate towards clean energy just fine and without government help.Perhaps the most ironic part of Polis' state of the state speech was his twin arguments for spending billions and writing impossible-to-comply-with regulations to mitigate climate change, and forcing a changeover to electric vehicles on the one hand, but then building more and bigger highways.

If Polis really wishes to reduce emissions, then he should be working towards eliminating land-use regulation by localities that force builders to spread out developments further and further away from city centers.  He should also be looking at privatizing infrastructure so that users pay the full cost of building and maintaining it.

In the meantime, one of the methods Polis and populist politicians like him use to "help" get electric vehicles into use is by penalizing the use of fossil fuels.  Libertarians suggest instead getting government out of the way: Don't subsidize or penalize **any** form of energy.

It is also ironic that Polis cited the all-solar coffee shop and windmill plant in his address.  Politicians like Polis, by making mining the minerals needed to build windmills, solar panels, and other tech either impossible or costly.  Which means that mining such minerals goes overseas, where slave and child labor is used and where environmental oversight is lax or nonexistent.

Polis says he wants to "help" businesses of all kinds start, grow, thrive, and create good-paying jobs.  Once again, this means he will attempt to pick economic winners and losers, when the only thing he needs to do is to get government out of the way by eliminating taxes, fees, licenses, permits, and regulations.  This is clearly not what he intends.  He wants to protect the "right" of communities:

"to have a voice when it comes to industrial activities within their borders. It's time for us to take meaningful action to address the conflicts between oil-and-gas drilling operations and the neighborhoods they impact, and to make sure that all of our communities have clean air and water."

"Communities" don't have rights.  Governments don't have rights.  Only individuals do, and only by protecting the right of individuals to do what they wish with their own honestly-acquired property will liberty be preserved.  If a company damages neighboring properties, the solution is to allow those damages to be addressed in court.

STATE INCOME TAXES; TAX CODE

POLIS: Wants to "make our tax code more fair, so that we can reduce rates for Colorado families and small businesses. Our tax code gives too much power to the special interests who can afford expensive lobbyists, while forcing ordinary families to pay more. As legislators, I know that many of you find these tax giveaways offensive."

LIBERTARIANS:  Again, this is because previous iterations of Polis have tried to pick winners and losers using the tax code.  Rather than continuing to trifle with who gets the better deal at tax time, the Libertarian Party suggests making all taxpayers the winners by eliminating taxes for all and allowing the private sector to provide better services at lower cost -- and without the free rider problem.

Polis referred to alleged "tax breaks" for this or that group as "tax expenditures".  In other words he assumes every penny of your money actually belongs to government, and if the government deems you worthy of keeping some of it, that's "spending" by the government.  That is a disease just about every politician suffers from.  A name for it might be "Grabitis".

Libertarians think you and everyone else in the private sector own every penny you have earned, saved, and invested; while the leeches of government should not expect a penny.

So yes, Jared -- let's modify the tax code.

By eliminating it.

SALES TAXES, OTHER TAXES

POLIS: "90 percent of the retailers in our state are small businesses. It's time to cap the vendor fee, which is a giveaway to the largest and most profitable retailers in the nation, and use the savings to lower rates, which will benefit small businesses and millions of working Coloradans."

LIBERTARIANS: Again, Polis wants to use the tax code to pick winners and losers.  But the only way to level the playing field is to abolish the vendor fee (tax) altogether.

POLIS: Wants to implement "true tax reform that reduces taxes for hardworking Coloradans instead of giving breaks to special interests while forcing families to pay more."

Families pay all taxes.  No corporation pays one cent of tax -- because taxes for corporations are just one more expense of doing business.  If you buy a loaf of bread one day for $1.00, and the next day a new $1.00 per loaf tax takes effect, that family will then have to pay $2.00 for the same loaf of bread.

Libertarians want an "economy where Coloradans from all walks of life don't just get by, but thrive," same as Polis said he wants.

But the difference between Polis and Libertarians is Polis wants you to believe he can wave his wand and do that by saddling Coloradans with higher taxes and more regulation; while Libertarians would eliminate barriers to producing wealth and improving one's lot in life.

MAKING THE STATE "WORK BETTER FOR ALL"

POLIS: He says he "will work tirelessly to make our state work better for you - so that you can earn a good living and share in our special way of life. And I know that this Legislature will do the same, because every single one of us wants to see every single Coloradoan succeed. A Colorado for all."

LIBERTARIANS: What he doesn't say:

• Except oil workers, whose industry is slowly being restricted into oblivion.
• Except the poor, who are being displaced rapidly from their homes due to escalating real estate taxes.
• Except gun owners, who are being threatened with confiscation.
• Except for antique car hobbyists, who are being regulated and harassed out of working on their own cars.
• Except for Republicans, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and other political minorities.
• Except for the victims of police shootings and beatings.
• Except for those who believe Freedom of Association is an inalienable right.
• Except for those who say unpopular things.
• Except for people in alternative relationships, like polyamory.
• Except for singles.

Polis asked a few rhetorical questions.

Which, unfortunately for him, are easy to answer.

POLIS: "Will our ideas be good for Colorado?"

LIBERTARIANS: Nope.  His ideas will mean more job security for bureaucrats, and more looting from taxpayers.

POLIS: "Will they reduce health care costs?"

LIBERTARIANS: No.  Polis' "solution" for health-care costs are no different than any other worshiper of state meddling.  They will increase costs and make the health-care system even more difficult for patients to navigate.

POLIS: "Will they improve our schools and help our kids get a strong start?"

LIBERTARIANS: No.  Schools will continue to deteriorate and leave students further behind homeschoolers, private schools, and the rest of the world.

POLIS: "We all agree that every child deserves a great education, so let's start there."LP: Excellent idea.  A terrific start would be to begin transitioning government indioctrination centers by selling them to parents.

POLIS: [Detailed a long laundry lists of things he wants to burp forth using other people's money.]

LIBERTARIANS: Sigh.

In summary, Polis is just another in a long line of tax-spend-regulate-subsidize-suppress-penalize political hacks who think they have any moral right to govern the affairs of private individuals.

Libertarians suggest an alternative to politics-as-usual:

• Get government out of the way.
• Eliminate taxes.
• Stop allowing localities within the state to violate individual rights; including property rights.
• Slash spending.
• Eliminate government jobs.
• Abolish regulation.
• Repeal all all unconstitutional regulation of freedom of speech, conscience, religion, expression, and Freedom of Association.
• Privatize government functions.
• Allow the private sector to work.
• Leave people free to improve their own station in life, and don't penalize them for doing so.
• Get government out of education.
• Cease all regulation of private, consensual behavior.
• Eliminate all state laws that compromise citizens' rights as protected by the Bill of Rights; particularly the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.

And leave us the hell alone.

------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Libertarian * 800-ELECT-US * http://www.LP.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Written by Marc Montoni <AMCAmbassador@gmail.com>, January, 2019.  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about the Radical Caucus, see www.LPRadicalCaucus.org or see the Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/2497146127/  .
------------------------------------------------------------

Bottom-Shelf Sustenance

[Editor's Note: This article was written in 2010 by Chad Quella, who retains all rights to it.]

With a cartful of our staple groceries at the usual family trip to the Mechanicsville Kroger, we got into the shortest checkout line and waited.  But after a while of staying in one spot and not advancing in line, I began to pay attention to what was going on ahead of me.

It appeared that there was a new trainee on the register with a more seasoned employee beside her, but what had caused the delay was a non-standard transaction that required some hands-on training.  She would get plenty of experience with that type of transaction by the time her customer finished checking out.

Lined-up on the conveyor belt were five separate clusters of items, each topped with a receipt-like strip of paper.  It immediately struck me as poor decision-making that this customer in front of me had selected several gallons of milk, but also several pints of milk.  The milk in a pint bottle of course is more expensive than the milk in a gallon bottle, and anyway I couldn’t imagine what might be going on in this woman’s home that would require that much milk, or even allow it to all get drank before it spoils.  But hey, it isn’t my milk.

There were a few other things too, I recall a package of individually-wrapped cheese food slices, and a tub of cottage cheese.  Big dairy fan, I chuckled to myself.  But there was one last cluster of items, different from the rest in that it didn’t have a slip of paper on top, and rather than dairy, it was a package of seafood salad, a styrofoam tray containing a pair of deviled crabs, and a bag of fresh lobster from the seafood counter.

As I stood and waited and watched, these clusters of food slowly made their way down the conveyor belt being rung up in separate transactions, I realized that the little slips of paper were not coupons or shopping lists, they were being used as payment!

For the first time, I took a look at who was making these purchases.  A couple, probably in their mid-30’s, both quite overweight, sporting sweat pants and t-shirts.  No kids were to be seen.  I began to put together that the paper slips must be some kind of government-issued vouchers, and the pints of milk and other small items were probably rounding out the value of each voucher.  I was informed later that this is the form that WIC benefits are paid in, and the fact that it was the first of the month made this the likely case.

I watched, incredulous, as the gallons upon gallons of milk went back into the cart, and the lobster, crabs and seafood salad were rung up.  The lady produced a card for payment of these items.  I couldn’t see what kind of card it was, but the standard “debit or

credit” question went unasked.  The dairy-laden couple went on their way, allowing the Kroger bagger to take their load out for them, and leaving us to bag our own items.

Now maybe I’ve led a sheltered life, but I don’t recall ever having seen such a thing before.  I went home and googled “WIC lobster” on a whim.  Turns out I’m not alone!  A quick search turned up these results:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/new-jersey/333767-middle-class-food-stamps-9.html

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/grand-rapids-mi/TA3IUSIOJUJT93DGV/p2

Almost right on cue, local media added a little more insight – just not in the way they intended.  First, a story in the 8/10/10 issue of Style Weekly highlighted a Whitcomb Court mother of six, and her monthly early-morning dash to the nearest supermarket to exchange her government-provided purchasing power for food.  The story was meant to call attention to the “food deserts” that exist where, coincidentally, the few food stores that remain do almost all of their business at the beginning of the month, and almost exclusively in government benefits.

Then, our local TV news monster ran a similar story into the ground on their channels 12, 35, and 65 afternoon, evening, and night broadcasts on 9/1/10.  It was meant to highlight another Whitcomb Court resident who was fit to be tied because a government computer system snafu had delayed the automatic deposit of money-for-nothing into her account.

The TV story even went so far as to bemoan the plight of a sink full of dirty dishes – dirty because the woman couldn’t afford to buy soap.  But after she called an automated service for the umpteenth time that day and discovered that she had received her handout, the last shot in the story showed her at last standing over the sink scrubbing a frying pan. 

What the article and TV news report really did for me was provide some perspective on the welfare state and the establishment and political attitudes that produce it.  In neither case did the journalist inquire about how these poor, downtrodden mothers ended up single, living their pathetic existences in government-funded housing, clinging to government-provided money to go to some horrible store and use it to buy bottom-shelf sustenance for themselves and their children.

All they focused on was the fact that they were waiting for that check, and couldn’t wait to spend it when it came.

-----------

Chad Quella lives with his family near Richmond, Virginia.

Abolish Government Police!

~1,400 Americans are killed by government police every year, and there are thousands of incidents fitting that description just in the last twenty years:

http://practicallawandjustice.liberty.me/2015/01/01/killed-by-police-preliminary-2014-data/

http://www.killedbypolice.net/

http://regressing.deadspin.com/were-compiling-every-police-involved-shooting-in-americ-1624180387

http://gawker.com/what-ive-learned-from-two-years-collecting-data-on-poli-1625472836

Cops, regardless which agency they burble forth from, are increasingly unwilling to respect anyone's right to life, liberty, or property.

The paid vacation given to cops after police assaults and killings is basically "paying a bounty" for civilian beatings and murder.

The main obstacle to reform is that government police face zero liability and are often given awards and raises for assaulting and killing people.  These amount to powerful incentives to behave in ways that most people would normally never consider.

The culture must change, and no human/civil rights commission will change it.  As long as police get a government paycheck, there is no incentive for police to respect anyone's rights.

Abolish Blue Privilege: Abolish Government Police Agencies

It's not white privilege that keeps starting up the riot furnace, it is Blue privilege.

Government Bureaucracy Logic 101: Constantly maim and kill people for little to no reason -- then act surprised when violence erupts.

The State kills roughly 1,400 Americans every year, and injures or threatens to injure half a million or more.  That isn't a statistic, it is a documented LIST.  See below for the source for that number.

Yes, that's *every* year.

The dead are also disproportionately black, but only by a few percentage points.  The majority of the dead in that list of 1,400 are *white*.

How many times does a child whack a hornets nest until he learns not to whack hornet's nests?

Once.

The State apparently never learns.

No, actually, that's not right.  The state knows very well that whacking a hornets nest will get the hornets in the air -- but the state also knows that when the hornets are in the air, it won't be politicians, bureaucrats, or the teeming nerds and hangers-on who suck at the government breast who will be getting stung.  It will be innocent civilians who will begetting stung because of the state's manipulation of the hornets.  When your house is under attack, your car has been destroyed, your daughter raped, and your son beaten up, you're desperate to find something that will protect your property and your family.

Government has forced alternatives to itself off the market -- which means those innocents who are getting hurt have only one practical thing to turn to: the very same batch of criminal bureaucrats who started it all in the first place.

Stirring the hornets' nest is extremely profitable for the government, and that's why government thugs do it.

Cops *know* when they break someone's spine, or shoot people in the back, or crush the life out of them, that they will not be prosecuted.  Their fellow government employees will protect them; the system is set up to give them license to murder.

Cops also *know* at some point when they kill someone in a particularly pointless, brutal way, that the community will erupt.

They KNOW it.

There is NO WAY they DON'T know it.

They also KNOW that the system refusing to throw them in jail when they do it can ONLY have one result: Throw gasoline on the fire.

Once the cop-ocracy has set the firestorm, they usually pull back from it to save their own tails, and they leave the Korean store owners, the Jewish deli owners, and the corner drug store to fend for themselves.  They don't even bother trying to evacuate anyone.

Cops also know that once they've finished each cycle, their department will have a fat budget increase, and some of that loot -- which is stolen from the families of their victims -- is going to go to those very same cops in the form of bonuses, pay raises, and the inevitable paid vacation most cops get after they kill someone.

Paid vacations which look an awful lot like "paying a bounty" for killing civilians.

After a year in which a constant stream of brutality was captured on video, and grudgingly "discovered" by the lamestream media, one would think that government police bureaucracies would at least try to restrain their worst officers for a while.

But no.  They continue to put the worst of their thugs on full display.  Instead of getting rid of the thugs, they harass and arrest people who try to video document their actions.

For example, Baltimore cops engaged in harassment and eventually arrested the videographer who caught the six Baltimore cops in action, there's enough illegal activity to send the perps to jail for several years (but only if they were Mundanes).  Let's start with "witness intimidation".

President John F. Kennedy: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable."

Government policing cannot be "reformed".  There simply far too many perverse incentives against any lasting change.

The only way to make police behave like responsible citizens is to eliminate their blue privilege and subject them to a healthy dose of the free market.  Already, private security plays a larger role in protecting lives and property in America than government cops do.  And insurance helps to make crime victims whole.

Government-run police on the other hand have proven to be failures at the job time and time again.  Every time they fail, their budgets increase, their pay and benefits fatten, and innocents pay the ultimate price for their failure.

Someday, people *will* wake up to just how big a failure it is, and they will start building alternatives.

Interactions with police are far, far more dangerous for citizens than for the cops.  ~1,400 Americans are killed every year by the cops, and many of them were people who simply didn't deserve to die.

The Kelly Thomas story: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/us/california-homeless-beating-verdict/

These sites have documented that ~1,400 Americans are killed by police every year:

http://practicallawandjustice.liberty.me/2015/01/01/killed-by-police-preliminary-2014-data/

http://www.killedbypolice.net/

http://regressing.deadspin.com/were-compiling-every-police-involved-shooting-in-americ-1624180387

http://gawker.com/what-ive-learned-from-two-years-collecting-data-on-poli-1625472836

Police work is actually one of the safer occupations.  Deep-sea fishermen who put food on your table are ~100 times more likely to die any given year in work-related accidents.  Law enforcement does not make the top ten list of most dangerous occupations.

Law enforcement is made dangerous to a large degree because police themselves willingly escalate to extreme violence in way too many encounters.  Police also make their own job more dangerous by voluntarily enforcing immoral and unconstitutional laws.

How many cops would be alive today if they weren't so slavishly handcuffed to shock and awe tactics, flash-bang grenades, sledge hammers and door-breaching devices used in breaking through doors...

... at 3:00 am?

Since government policing simply cannot be reformed, the only thing that will increase citizen safety is to abolish government police forces, and replace them with neighborhood-hired private security.

There is a growing body of study on what a privatized system of security would look like:

http://www.guns.com/2015/02/27/opinion-its-time-to-consider-privatized-policing/

http://www.copblock.org/130/public-vs-private-police-which-would-you-choose-2/

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/tag/privatized-police/


The only thing that might help reform American justice is privatization. At least then if the neighborhood-hired cop starts beating up his customers, they will have some hope of recourse.

Private cops actually get prosecuted when they break down the wrong door (example: "Two Bounty Hunters Charged In Henrico / They Smashed Way Into Woman’s Apartment", ­ Richmond Times ­ Dispatch ­ Richmond, Va. ­ Date: Jul 7, 1995 ­ Start Page: B.1).

In contrast, government cops can break down the door, shoot the dog, shoot a sleeping innocent unarmed person, throw a grenade into a baby's crib, ransack the house ­ -- and yet get away scot-free.

Is the prospect of private police really so much scarier than what goes on now under the current paradigm?

Further reading:

Support Your Local Private Peace Officer: He Has A Dangerous Job


  -- By William Norman Grigg

Taxpayers Near Ferguson Must Turn to Private Security
  -- by Ryan McMaken   

Without "Qualified Immunity," Would Cops Be So Quick to Kill?
  -- By William Norman Grigg

Darren Wilson and the Reality of "Blue Privilege"
  -- By William Norman Grigg
 
"We Have Been a Paramilitary Organization": How the Police Talk When They Think We're Not Listening
  -- By William Norman Grigg

Why "Good Cops" Stay Silent: The Persecution of Officer Adam Basford
  -- By William Norman Grigg

Police Union Commissar: If You Resist, You Should Expect to Die
  -- By William Norman Grigg

To Crush a Cop-Watcher: Prosecutorial Abuse in Ada County, Idaho
  -- By William Norman Grigg

Enhance Public Safety: Disarm the Police!
  -- By William Norman Grigg   

Walter Block has a bibliography to offer on the subject of Privatize Police.

When Bad Things Happen, Don't Punish The Innocent

Christopher Michael-Martinez didn't deserve to die.  He was among the victims of the UCSB killings last year.

Since then, Christopher's father, Richard Martinez, has been using his son's killing to promote gun control.

A criminal act against your son is not an excuse for *you* to join hands with armed agents and have them commit crimes against *me*.

If Christopher had been among those the murderer killed with a knife, would you voluntarily give up the knives, loppers, axes, hatchets and scissors in your own home?  Would you call for the arrest and prosecution of your next door neighbor for scraping paint off his windows with a razor?

Had Christopher been one of the victims who were struck by the assailant's car, would you start agitating for the banning of cars and looting the auto manufacturers?  Would you then voluntarily give up *your own* car?

I fully understand you have a huge hole in your heart from the injustice of your son being taken from you that way.  But using your grief as an excuse to harm others who have done nothing to you will do nothing to stop such events.  And using armed agents of The State to achieve your aims may very well foment tragedy all by itself.

I hope you find peace.  We're all with you on that journey.

Allende Could Have Started a Real Revolution - But He Didn't

9/11, for the people of Chile, has a completely different meaning than it has for Americans.

Forty-one years ago, on September 11, 1973 Salvador Allende was deposed in a violent coup led by Augusto Pinochet.

CNN published a pretty good article about the coup marking the 40th anniversary last year.

I remember watching the news at the time this happened.  My parents were in tears.  But the thing to remember about it is there are always two sides to a story, and my parents could not hear the other side.

Generally speaking, the left takes from the rich and middle class and gives to the poor; while the right takes from the poor and middle class and gives to the rich.  Both the left and the right are covetous of other people's wealth.

Allende was from the left.  He was a Marxist who had close ties with Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR), which was a leftist militant & terrorist group.

Once elected, Allende ignored thousands of court orders and precedents (writing executive orders to override them, as all of our own recent presidents including Obama have done) and confiscated billions of dollars of private property in a forced nationalization of industries.  What had been a growing middle class in Chile was reduced to penury by the end of his term.

In a few cases where anyone dared resist confiscation, they were jailed or shot.

Removing someone's property at gunpoint is called "robbery".

The election of Allende was a product of the repression of the middle and lower classes prior to 1968; but the coup was a product of Allende's repression of the middle and upper classes.  Allende had a chance to break the cycle of one government breaking bad one way and the next government breaking bad the opposite way.

He chose not to.

Most leaders don't -- they'd rather double down.

Allende could have concentrated on reforms that would have improved lives and extended the free market so that more of the poor could participate.  Instead he chose to bring down the middle class and the rich.

This effect has been demonstrated dozens of times in the last century.  A more recent example is Columbia, where the government went from rightist to leftist. The same thing is happening there.

The only way to end polarizing politics is to protect the rights of all, and reduce government intrusion into all areas of private life -- business and personal.  Government should not be involved in so many aspects of your life; it only creates conflict and turns people against each other.

A small and frugal government that doesn't steal or murder doesn't create enemies.

... And What Is The Consistent Libertarian Position on Abortion?

Libertarians are as divided on the issue of abortion as are every other group.

The main reason we are divided is that we have accepted the government's terms for the debate, in other words the debate has been framed to be between those who are "pro-life" vs those who are "pro-choice".

A consistent Libertarian, however, doesn't have to choose between one or the other position, however.  Doing so does not make one more or less of a libertarian.  It is true the LP has been pro-choice since it was formed.  As long as I am involved it will remain that way; however, some alterations to our platform are in order.  For one thing, the rights of men have never been addressed within any of the LP's platform positions on abortion.

Everyone wants there to be fewer abortions.  Everyone.  Everyone recognizes that abortion is at best a tradeoff of negatives.

But only freedom will get us all what we want, which is fewer abortions.

The only way to address abortion is to make it look less like a necessary option, and to reduce the incentives that push people towards it.  Reducing barriers to adoption, making sure minors have access to sex education materials or counseling, voluntarily supporting efforts to provide free or low-cost contraception, and more economic opportunity will all tend to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Economic growth tends to suppress the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies.  In a truly free-market economy, there would be so much wealth available to earn, more young people would put off childbearing in order to get in on the economic action.

Libertarians also understand that human behavior responds to incentives.  Get rid of the incentives for abortion or against it, and human behavior will tend to migrate towards the widely-accepted moral end we all want.

For instance, reducing the legal and financial penalties for getting someone pregnant will change behavior towards reducing the number of abortions. A man should have the right to invoke the paper equivalent of an abortion: During the pregnancy or within a defined time frame of being informed he has fathered a child, he should be able to -- essentially "give up the child for adoption by the mother" (or someone else), and be released from all parental responsibility and entitlements (getting to participate in birthdays, custody, etc).

Men shouldn't be forced into situations any more than women are.  They bear the financial and psychological costs of unwanted pregnancies as much as women.  And they deserve the same right to opt out of parenthood as women.

If women understood their partner could opt-out without any financial penalties, that would tend to discourage unwanted pregnancies to begin with.

If men knew that, they would be far less likely to pressure their partner to abort.

But more importantly: Knowing they could opt-out without financial penalty would lessen the likelihood of intimate partner violence (IPV) during pregnancy.  Some researchers pretend they do not understand why some men end up killing their genetic offspring in the womb.  They wonder how there could have been any genetic advantage to doing so.  That just shows that a college degree doesn't impart any common sense.

There are no evolutionary incentives to kill an intimate partner (except it's easy to imagine that in ancient times, a time of famine would have driven parents or partners to kill in order to survive).  But normally, there would be no evolutionary incentive.

In contrast, modern society has -- perhaps inadvertently -- constructed numerous financial and legal incentives.  Watch this episode of Forensic Files and listen to what the police said was this young man's motive for murder.  This true story is not an isolated incident, either.  IPV murders account for almost a thousand murders every decade.


As is the rule with poorly thought-out laws everywhere, the current paradigm that shoves everyone into a one-size-fits-all straightjacket introduces unintended consequences.

The solution is freedom.


As with everything else, only freedom brings about the result everyone wants: fewer abortions (and fewer deaths in general).

Harry Browne rejected the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice".  We Libertarians should follow his example.  He said:  "Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs."

This should be obvious to anyone today:  The cat's out of the bag.  There is already a market for smuggled drugs that induce abortion.  Everyone knows about RU-486, and the "morning-after" pill.  No one in favor of banning abortion  can possibly be ignorant of these things.  If government bans abortion, as Browne says above, it will be every bit as incompetent at the job as it is with any of its other prohibitions.

Dr. Walter Block, professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, provides an alternative to the standard choice between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" which he terms "evictionism". According to this moral theory, the act of abortion must be conceptually separated into the acts of (a) eviction of the fetus from the womb; and (b) killing the fetus. Building on the libertarian stand against trespass and murder, Block supports a right to the first act, but, except in certain circumstances, not the second act. He believes the woman may legally abort if (a) the fetus is not viable outside the womb; or (b) the woman has announced to the world her abandonment of the right to custody of the fetus, and (c) no one else has "homesteaded" that right by offering to care for the fetus.

But perhaps more to the point: Why shouldn't government ban abortion?  Well, be careful what you wish for.

Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party's 2004 presidential candidate, said: "I oppose government control over the abortion issue. I believe that giving the government control of this issue could lead to more abortions rather than less, because the left-right pendulum of power swings back and forth. This shift could place the power to set policy in the hands of those who demand strict population control. The government that can ban abortion can just as easily mandate abortion, as is currently the case in China."

Paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson: "The government powerful enough to give you what you want is powerful enough to take everything you have."

Let's all keep that in mind before we advocate banning abortion.

Only freedom will get us what we all want.

NY: Subways Stolen!

The subject of the NY subway system is a fascinating read that shows the true greed and hypocrisy of government-run operations.

The private NY mass transit operators were driven out of business in the 20s to 40's by government edict.

The tools used were regulatory -- denials of permits for infrastructure maintenance, denial of permits for expansion to new areas, a cap on fares of 5 cents, and other tactics.

The federal government prints money -- and as it prints more and more of it to cover deficit spending, the cash becomes worth less and less. This phenomenon was happening with federal money in the 1930's, just as it is today. With their nickel fares being eroded in value by federal inflation and the refusal of the city government to permit the companies to raise fares or do just about anything else, the handwriting was on the wall.

How long could **you** run a business if you could only charge one price for your product or service?  For the 42 years since the first subway opened in 1904 the fare had remained a nickel -- by law.

It is by no means a rare occurrence for governments to slaughter the golden goose in this way. For example, Vladimir Putin stole an oil empire from the private sector using the state's monopoly on force and handed the empire over to close political cronies at fire-sale prices.

Something very similar happened in New Jersey just a few years ago (late nineties), in the insurance business: wildly unpredictable, out of line liability awards made insurance in several industries impossible to write. The state government limited premiums on the front end, and allowed outlandish awards on the other. When insurance companies began to lose their shirts, and some began closing their NJ operations, the NJ government quickly stepped in with a law prohibiting the insurers from leaving the state -- so many went bankrupt instead.

Another similar tactic was used by the New York bureaucracy with regard to the subway system.

Check out the sanitized version of the story on the Metropolian Transit Authority's website.  Example: "Around the time the Independent was first conceived, in 1920, there was severe overcrowding on the subways. They were victims of their own success. The word "unification" was very politically correct during this time. The idea behind unification was to have the City of New York buy out the privately owned Interborough Rapid Transit (IRT) Company and the Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit (BMT) Corporation. On April 25th, 1921, the New York Transit Commission was formed to develop a plan to resolve the overcrowding and delays on the current lines in any manner it saw fit, including "recapturing" existing lines from the privately owned rapid transit subway and elevated lines."


[NOTE: Links in the above paragraph were added by this author.]

"Recapturing" is bureaucratese for "stealing".

Notice the sleight-of-hand there?  The bureaucrats assume everything belongs to The State, and you only get title to it by the good graces of ... bureaucrats.  Because if you're not in their good graces, they get to "recapture" whatever they "loaned" to you.

There is a fairly good Wikipedia article about the shady history of the government takeover of the private transit system.

The "progressive" pols of New York from the twenties to the forties followed a well-worn path to seize the private subway and elevated train operators.  And other forms of mass transit.

One of the politicians, Mayor Hylan (also see this), a Democrat, involved in bankrupting the transit companies had earlier been fired from one of the subway companies. Once in a position to do so, he wrought his revenge - big time.

If the subways were crowded, then they were profitable! Thus, the city could have allowed the PRIVATE companies to build more lines. Instead, they put up the Independent (IND) lines in direct competition - right UNDER them - the 6th Avenue subway was put right under the 6th Avenue El and the Fulton Street subway in Brooklyn was put right UNDER the Fulton Street El.

Now, if there was a need for more subway & elevated lines, why not build them in other places not yet covered (for example, 5th Avenue or 10th Avenue?).  In fact, on the East Side of Manhattan, there were 3 IRT owned lines : Lexington, 3rd Av, and 2nd Av - back in 1921.  Now, under GOVERNMENT ownership to "relieve overcrowding", there is just the Lexington!  Transportation bond issues to raise money for another 2nd Av line came about in 1946, 1967, the 1970;s, etc. and were passed - but no subway line was built.  What the government was very good at was TEARING DOWN existing lines (and selling the scrap to our ally Japan who used it on Pearl Harbor).

After tearing down lines, the city then used the Maintenance budget as a slush fund.  The politicians became tools of the unions and paid ridiculous contracts.  "Chic" politicians like John Vliet Lindsay and his ilk encouraged graffiti "artistes" for a while.  As a "public accomodation", they were not allowed to remove winos, bums, beggars, etc. who slept and stunk up the subways.  After hitting rock bottom about 1980, there has been a little bit of a resurgence but more and more people take cars into Manhattan.

One of the few lines built by the City in the last 50 years was a tunnel from 63rd Street Manhattan into Queens that dead ends in Queens with no connections - not even to Queens Plaza a mile away - something like $2,000,000,000 for a tunnel to nowhere!


Mass transit was evolving naturally before government got involved.   The death of it was largely coincident with government interference.  its rebirth as a socialist government enterprise is fraught with waste and delay.  Any student of economics should study the history of mass transit in America -- especially with regard to subways -- if he wants a good picture of the corrupting hand of government.


For additional reading on the topic, here are a few links:


1.  "Subway Hijinks", by Gregory Bresiger, on Mises.org.

2.  "Subway Tax in the Rancid Apple ",  by Gregory Bresiger, on Mises.org.

Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying Organization Loses One!

I was floored to read of the first crack in the stranglehold the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) has on county-state politics.  Kudos to Goochland County.  I don't know how the Board of Supervisors came to the conclusion they did, but it is a pleasing development.

For a long time, I wondered how public debate always seemed to be so well-funded in favor of fatter government and getting more financial lard slathered all over its teeming bureaucrats.  Then I served a term on the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water District, and discovered that a good portion of the money we were given to fund operations was given to an organization called the Virginia Association of Soil & Water Conservation Districts (VASWCD).  Looking into it further, I discovered that VASWCD was essentially a "Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying Organization", or a "TFLO".  A large portion of the annual dues the Lord Fairfax district sent to them were used to fund lobbying efforts at the local, state, and even federal level.  I also learned that even the small bureaucracy that was the Lord Fairfax SWCD wasn't just funding VASWCD, but was also funneling cash to additional TFLO-type groups such as the Shenandoah Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D) Council.

Being a Libertarian, I objected to the District's membership in these organizations every year, because I think it is absolutely wrong for government to lobby government.  Legislators should adjust policy according to the wishes of the citizens, rather than doing so at the behest of highly-paid lobbyists who represent the 1% elite bureaucrats and politicians who presume to know what's best for the rest of us!

Unfortunately, I was the minority on the Board, and as a result the District continues to throw cash at lobbying front groups.

What VASWCD was to the Soil & Water District, the VACO is to county governments.  There are many other similar NGO's for every type of government under the sun.  The Virginia Municipal League, the Virginia Court Clerks Association, etc all have some lobbying component, and all of them are one way or another funded by taxpayers.

So VACO is the definition of a Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying Organization.  The reason that it and similar organizations should be of serious concern to every taxpayer is this:  the things they lobby for are almost always beneficial to governments and bureaucrats, and almost always detrimental to taxpayers.

County bureaucrats cannot lobby the government while on taxpayer time.  But they can do the same thing by setting up a front organization, call it an NGO, throw some taxpayer cash at it, and perform an ethical skirt-and-dodge.

Political hacks and bureaucrats should not be allowed to grab cash from the government trough, and shovel it at "non-government organizations" ("NGO's") so the NGO can then hire legions of paid lobbyists to work against the wishes of the taxpayer; government should never be given any opportunity to influence itself!

There are literally thousands of NGO's similar to VACO in the United States, and they all exist for one purpose: to get more taxpayer loot (or power) shoveled into their gaping maw.

The legislature should eliminate the ability of local and state bureaucrats or government bodies to lobby any other government body.  Membership in any NGO that lobbies (directly or indirectly) for anything that would favor the individual or originating government should be absolutely forbidden.

Private Police The Only Way To Real Reform

A Virginia citizen named Myron Rhodes recently wrote a letter to the editor of the Harrisonburg, VA Daily News-Record, criticizing "administrative forgiveness" extended to an inebriated local police official last year. He correctly equated "professional courtesy" with "corruption". I agree with that assessment.

However, there is absolutely no chance that the solution Mr. Rhodes advocated -- "make a better choice at the ballot box" -- will have any effect whatsoever on the behavior of the law enforcement bureaucracy. Policing in America cannot and will not be reformed in its current configuration.
When Average Joe is accused of a crime, long before trial the police eagerly release his identity and mug shots. This is public shaming and perhaps a stained or ruined life. In contrast, when a member of The Brotherhood perpetrates the exact same act, and the bureaucracy decides it doesn't want to prosecute, it is forever locked away as a "confidential personnel matter". There is a word for this: hypocrisy.

The sort of corruption Mr. Rhodes describes has become almost universal among government police agencies. The "blue wall of silence", treating "their own" as above the law is rapidly turning this country into a third-world laughingstock. While the individuals within the system bear full responsibility for taking advantage of it, it is the system itself that has created the conditions necessary for otherwise upstanding individuals to become corrupt.

Remember, "thou shalt not tempt".

The only real way to reform the police is to get government out of policing and thus remove the corrupting influence of taxpayer funding. Coercive funding always means fat, out-of-control ballooning budgets; and constant bailouts for law enforcement managers who refuse to properly manage their department within its budget. Coercive funding means police "services" are paid for before you receive any good or service. If you refuse - or fail - to use such service, the government takes your money anyway. Even if you are falsely arrested or assaulted by a government cop, you don't get a refund -- and usually nothing ever happens to the offending officer, either.

With all things, money means power, and American police are rapidly becoming the Sheriffs of Nottingham -- enforcing increasingly unsustainable levels of taxation. Of course, like all government employees, confiscatory taxation supports ever-higher pay and pensions for themselves -- the job itself becomes a perverse incentive. Police unions and bureaucracies are increasingly establishing themselves among the nation's largest Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying Organizations; meddling in politics to get laws implemented that their supposed "bosses" -- the taxpayers -- don't want. Witness the recent outlawing of open carry in California -- passed largely at the behest of the police unions and bureaucrats.

Real reform of the culture of corruption can only be achieved by replacing bloated, inefficient government policing with privatized police protection.

What would private policing look like? Some parts of it are already familiar to most people. Anyone who has a Yellow Pages can find private police operating now, under the heading "Security Guard & Patrol Service" or similar. As government police departments are closed, the listings in that category will only expand as competent former officers start their own companies. Locally, Massanutten has a private police force paid for by the residents.

It is a rule that those of us in the private sector must compete to win customers. Bad behavior on the part of employees in a competitive market tends to be weeded out rather quickly. A store that has an employee who frequently yells at customers will lose them to the next store down the block; similarly, if a person subscribes to "police protection company A" and one of its officers treats the subscriber like dirt, well, that subscriber can cancel his subscription and his dollars will then flow towards "police protection company B". But this moderating effect can only happen in a free market.

Private police protection could be provided at the level of individual neighborhoods, where neighbors would contribute to hire police protection that closely serves their needs. Other people might simply purchase better insurance coverage; or perhaps some would rely on neighborhood watch groups.

As long as governments operate police agencies, their monopoly, "you can't go elsewhere" outlook will prevail simply because the need to win over customers just doesn't exist. Law enforcement by bureaucracy will remain stubbornly inefficient, expensive to maintain, and difficult to reform. And "professional courtesy" -- call it "corruption" -- will continue to be an ever-bigger problem.

************

The above article was printed by the Daily News-Record on Wednesday, November 9, 2011, as an "Open Forum" article on the editoarial page.

Additional resources on private policing:

1.  Mises Wiki on private policing.

2.  Reason TV interview: Matt Welch of Reason interviews economics professor Edward Stringham about private police.  Hat tip to Frunkus Baldwin.

3.  Fed Ex has its own police force: "Two years ago, after intense lobbying by FedEx of the Tennessee state legislature, the company was permitted to create a 10-man, state-recognized police force. FedEx police wear plain clothes and can investigate all types of crimes, request search warrants and make arrests on FedEx property."

Note that Libertarians would NOT approve of the level of cooperation FedEx gives to law enforcement further up in the cited article.  But even this can be traced to the government's need to know everything about you.

4.  About 80 private cops protect the 50k residents of the 35-building "Co-Op City" residential complex in New York.

Note that Libertarians would NOT approve of people being allowed to walk off their jobs without the employer being able to replace them at-will.  Unless, of course, the employer freelyt agreed to such a condition.

5.  Jarrett B. Wollstein in his article "Police Forces" describes how they might be funded without resorting to coercion.

6.  Patrick Tinsley, writing in Journal of Libertarian Studies 14:1 (Winter 1998–99): 95–100: Private Police: A Note.  Describes the inability of public police to reform, how a free-market in policing might be different.

-- end --