A Libertarian Critique of the Police Monopoly By John Steele
We take it as granted that the police are justified with their monopoly of force in society, but an organised police force is only a relatively new thing in social development, the first European police force being in Paris in 1667, although various forms of policing have been conducted since ancient times.
This article, written by a libertarian, those who hold to the extremes of freedom, individualism and the joys of Adam Smith style capitalism, raises many doubts about modern policing, most importantly that citizens are really on their own in terms of self-protection, for the real role of the police is to protect governments and big business:
“In the wake of yesterday’s church shooting in Texas, for example, private citizens were the ones who shot back at the assailant, and then chased him down in a high speed pursuit. The police did nothing but write some reports afterward.
A few months earlier, as violence escalated during the Charlottesville riot in Virginia, the law enforcement agencies stood back and did little except crash a helicopter in the woods.
Worst of all, of course, is the fact that it took police an hour and 12 minutes to respond to the Las Vegas shooter who killed more than fifty people as he opened fire on a crowd near the Las Vegas strip. Although hotel security had reported the location of the gunman — who had shot a security guard — even before the shooting began, local police agencies waited more than hour before entering the shooter’s room. It remains unclear why the shooter stopped shooting after only about ten minutes, but we do know that he would have been free to keep shooting for a much, much longer period of time".
Among advocates for private firearms ownership, the old joke is that “when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.” In Las Vegas at least, the saying could be “when seconds matter, the police are only an hour (or more) away.”
Defenders of the police, of course, will claim that an hour of preparation was necessary in order to protect “officer safety.” But this also tells you a lot about how government police function: while a gunman is raining down gunfire upon a crowd of people, it’s officer safety that comes first, not citizen safety.
These are just some more recent examples. A multitude of historical examples remain, as well, including the Columbine school shooting in which local police agencies did nothing but seal off the area while the shooters remained untouched inside the school. The students and faculty trapped inside the school were on their own.
Police have no legal duty to protect citizens, and are not liable for any harm occurring because of police inaction. Yet, the citizens still have to pay for the police, even though they do not get protection. It makes no sense at all, and is yet another amazing thing that the sheeple put up with, probably not even thinking about it, until the police go out revenue raising by booking people for infringements of the most trivial kinds, while the real criminals are free to raid and loot at their ample leisure.
If we are really on our own in terms of self-protection, then that constiutes a fundamental argument for citizens having firearms for self-protection: