Posted On: August 23, 2007, 10:19 am CDT

Posted By: gimme shelter

Two responses: first, you wrote "would be much worse;" that's a hypothetical statement because it's not been tested. Who's to say that in the absence of a police force, private initiatives wouldn't be introduced to reduce car thefts: high-tech security systems; private security patrol firms; customized insurance coverage (and you know that an insurance company has a greater incentive than police departments to prevent car thefts if they're obligated to pay in the event of theft). I live in an area where, if you call the cops, you'll be lucky to get them to respond in one week. But we've lived there for over 7 years and there hasn't been one car theft or home break in or even attempted break in. That's because most of the people in our neighborhood, and adjoining neighborhoods, have guns and there's a gun club in the area (and, no, I'm not trying to turn this into a "gun rights" issue, but only making the point that private solutions have formed in the absence of police presence).

But the main point is that everyone is coerced into paying for the police dept. whether they want to or not, or whether they want their "services" or not. To focus in on car thefts: suppose that someone has an old junker and they don't care if it gets stolen; or someone has the latest high-tech security system that has been shown to be invulnerable to car theft; or someone never parks their car on a public street; or indeed has no car at all. These people would most likely not want to pay for the police in relation to their cars.

Let's take a similar situation: suppose that there was a home improvement/fix-up contractor in a town. They say, "O.K., we're going to force everyone into paying us, whether they elect to use our services or not. With the money we receive, we'll go around and fix up homes that need repair; if we didn't, the town would not be as attractive as if we didn't. True, the people who have newer homes or who are handy themselves with tools, or who don't even want their houses fixed up will not ask for our services, but that's too bad. 'Society' must pay for the upkeep of the houses that need it. Oh, and by the way, even though you paid us, we're not obligated to you in any way" Would you put up with that?

I'll end this with the world's shortest political quiz: Do you think that any services should be provided at the barrel of a gun? That is, do you think people should be forced, by violence or the ultimate threat thereof either to themselves or others, to pay for something they don't want? If your answer is "yes," then it's unlikely that anyone can deal with you on a rational, logical, or peaceable basis. If your answer is "no," then we have a foundation for discussion, and the starting point should be whether or not the "service" provider is offering their services on a voluntary basis (no, not "voluntary" as in free, but voluntary as in not coerced).