Police in a Free Society.

[Skm1091]

Without the monopoly on law enforcement. I think that the police force will be run somewhat like this.

1. They will be funded by local community aid and protection societies, which are also voluntarily funded and have to compete with various other community aid and protection societies for money. Note: aid and protection societies can also be insurance companies.

2.They will also compete with other police forces, because if they don't do a good job they will lose market share etc.

3. If one lives in the area that the police work in and not pay them, they won't be jailed or anything, however the police force will simply not give them protection or any of their services, at least until they start to pay the fees.

What do ya think of this?

[Ibrahim90]

Without the monopoly on law enforcement. I think that the police force will be run somewhat like this.

1. They will be funded by local community aid and protection societies, which are also voluntarily funded and have to compete with various other community aid and protection societies for money. Note: aid and protection societies can also be insurance companies.

2.They will also compete with other police forces, because if they don't do a good job they will lose market share etc.

3. If one lives in the area that the police work in and not pay them, they won't be jailed or anything, however the police force will simply not give them protection or any of their services, at least until they start to pay the fees.

What do ya think of this?

you need to demonstrate how number three will not mean that these people will go unprotected.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

They'll benefit from the streets being overall safer as a result of the police but if they don't pay for coverage in the event of them being targeted by a crime, I fail to see why anyone should have to take the fall for their negligence.  It's no different than not buying house insurance.  It's your choice but understand that you ARE taking a risk there.

[Skm1091]

you need to demonstrate how number three will not mean that these people will go unprotected.

The general area will be made safe so less likely they will have to contact the police. Too report a crime already happened to them they will have to pay the fees and extra. Also if they don't pay it they can either have their credit rating shot or have their utilitities cut off until they make that specific payment. 

Exactly like Lord T Hawkeye said.

[dallen68]

They'll benefit from the streets being overall safer as a result of the police but if they don't pay for coverage in the event of them being targeted by a crime, I fail to see why anyone should have to take the fall for their negligence.  It's no different than not buying house insurance.  It's your choice but understand that you ARE taking a risk there.

Okay, and what about those that just plain not have the resources to be paying this insurance?

[Skm1091]

Okay, and what about those that just plain not have the resources to be paying this insurance?

Well you have to take into account of supply and demand. If the insurance is too expensive no one would want to buy it. So the company would have an incentive to make the price as affordable as possible.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Okay, and what about those that just plain not have the resources to be paying this insurance?

There's already volunteer programs that handle that even now.

And really, in a free society, poverty is really not going to be the issue it is now.  Before the welfare state, poverty was a temporary setback.  Some people would fall on hard times, readjust their spending to compensate and quickly climb out.  Really, the only poor people in a free society would be people who choose to be poor.  (ie: People who value their free time more than money and thus would just do the bare minimum to get by and use the rest of their time for other things.)

[Travis Retriever]

@Hawkeye--Indeed.
@Dallen68 & Ibrahim90--I think you're missing the point.  Always remember that we aren't technically proposing our own system--even the OP of this thread said this is how he thought it *might* happen without a monopoly police force.  Remember Shane's video on Atheism + Libertarianism, the first of said series was to point out that we don't have that burden of proof, nor do we owe anyone an answer to that.  We're not trying to propose a replacement system anymore than a doctor needs to find a replacement to the cancer he just removed from your body.

[Skm1091]

There's already volunteer programs that handle that even now.

And really, in a free society, poverty is really not going to be the issue it is now.  Before the welfare state, poverty was a temporary setback.  Some people would fall on hard times, readjust their spending to compensate and quickly climb out.  Really, the only poor people in a free society would be people who choose to be poor.  (ie: People who value their free time more than money and thus would just do the bare minimum to get by and use the rest of their time for other things.)

Or Monks?

[Travis Retriever]

Or Monks?

Or graduate students. /bah-dum-tish!

[Ibrahim90]

They'll benefit from the streets being overall safer as a result of the police but if they don't pay for coverage in the event of them being targeted by a crime, I fail to see why anyone should have to take the fall for their negligence.  It's no different than not buying house insurance.  It's your choice but understand that you ARE taking a risk there.

actually, I agree 100% on this.

@ surhot: don't get me wrong, I know and agree (including with the fact that the burden of proof is on the statists); it's evident that I was a bit unclear with my reply, and for this I apologize.

I wasn't talking about demonstrating that this will work to me or you, or anyone here, since there is more than one possibility, and indeed we aren't proposing one officially. But at the same time, it doesn't hurt to see if you can at least demonstrate that an alternative (official or not) isn't necessarily inferior to the current one (in this case, by demonstrating that any alternative--with this as an example, isn't necessarily just going to "leave people out"), not that this is necessarily better or worse. As this is all speculation, and further, it hasn't been "tried out" necessarily as such, that's all we need to do: it still keeps the burden of proof on the statist to show that these systems are necessarily inferior (and as we aren't really saying this is superior/better/the answer, the burden of proof never shifts to us). it's why the reply I made was worded that I said that his proposal doesn't mean so and so.

remember, a statist reading this can still construe this as the alternative we suggest--like that cunt schepwhatever did with me regarding healthcare, when I discussed how a free market healthcare isn't necessarily condemn one to a shorter life than an NHS system (and while we're at it, I showed him that you couldn't demonstrate that the NHS is why Europeans live longer). Shane knows who I'm referring to (schepawhatever), and he may have seen the exchange under that stupid video about Libertarianism (by some dolt in a black shirt and glasses).

in any event, I have my own ideas: we can do without police altogether, and rely on neighborhood watches, or "clans" or communities handling things internally on an individual basis, while dealing with other clans or groups via arbitration and torts--as the Arabs (up until recently in fact) and ancient Germanic peoples (till the medieval period) were into.

And we can propose other ideas: the possibilities are exciting.

EDIT: well that was rambly...And not the best logic...

[nilecroc]

Without the monopoly on law enforcement. I think that the police force will be run somewhat like this.

1. They will be funded by local community aid and protection societies, which are also voluntarily funded and have to compete with various other community aid and protection societies for money. Note: aid and protection societies can also be insurance companies.

2.They will also compete with other police forces, because if they don't do a good job they will lose market share etc.

3. If one lives in the area that the police work in and not pay them, they won't be jailed or anything, however the police force will simply not give them protection or any of their services, at least until they start to pay the fees.

What do ya think of this?

Or I buy my own security robots.

[Skm1091]

Or I buy my own security robots.

you can do whatever you want my friend