- Protect the people from dangers
- Enforce the Ruling class's preferences upon the masses.
I think that in the modern world, it is almost invariably B, rather than A that is the primary function of police. However, I think that almost the entire conservative and minarchist pro-police position assumes that the answer is A. Calling out the distinction might help clarify some things.
Posts
5 comments:
This is complicated no end by the way that the current ruling class's preference is to protect the people from a lot of dangers.
Oops, it seems my wife has been using my computer. That was my comment, but the machine used her id.
They obviously do some of both, but I think their beneficial contribution to A is huge and easily outweighs their negative contribution to B. If the police shut down there will be lawlessness and gangsterism - like exists in no-go areas for police in many inner cities in the USA.
Now, if you want to say that the growth in policing since WW2 has been almost entirely about B, I think I'd agree.
Salemdamluji,
2 items.
1. My question is especially about what happens in conflict cases. In conflict cases, enforcing the ruling class preferences clearly is the winner over citizen-protection.
2. The history of police is pretty clear. They were NOT state entities (except in Roman times, and in the Chinese Empire which oppressed it's citizenry into malthusian squalor for 2000 years or more). Rather, they were private services. Which meant they were, as are all industries, dependent on their customers for funding...and interested in citzen-service first.
I don't disagree that a peacekeeper is a good thing. One paid by the state, though, is a bad thing.
B was the sort of thing that seemed like an interesting idea when I was living in Minnesota.
It seems hopelessly naive after I moved to DC.
Every week or two a person gets randomly assaulted while going about his normal daily routine. If the "ruling class" is trying to prevent this sort of thing, then I say more power to the ruling class.
Post a Comment