Police

All Enforcers Are Cops

Real police reform requires backing off efforts to force people to do things they don’t want to do.

|

The mass movement for U.S. police reform continues, with legislation pending in Congress, protests in the streets, and the public at large embracing an end to the "qualified immunity" that protects police officers against civil liability for bad conduct. But a lot of the same people callingrightlyfor changes in the way governments enforce laws also propose ambitious interventions into American life that require significant enforcement.

Ultimately, a lot of people are either going to have to betray their commitment to reform or come to terms with the fact that all enforcers are cops and prone to abusing police power.

"Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence," Yale Law School's Stephen L. Carter wrote in 2014 after New York City cops killed Eric Garner during a confrontation rooted in suspicion that he was illegally selling loose cigarettes.

Every violent enforcement action, I'll add, involves enforcers acting through a filter of flaws and prejudices.

The usual "face" of enforcement is the traditional police department, easily identifiable in patrol cars and uniforms. But general-purpose cops are only part of the apparatus that governments use to impose their will. Specialized agencies enforce regulations, hunt unauthorized immigrants, collect taxes, search out forbidden goods and conduct, and otherwise twist people's arms.

Even at the lowest level, coercive power is abused. Minority-owned businesses have long complained that they're on the receiving end of disproportionate attention from inspectors who don't like them, or who perceive them as less able to fight back.

"Our 2019 report showed that [State Liquor Authority] licensed businesses within minority census tracts were raided at 4 times the rate of less diverse neighborhoods levying fines up to forty thousand dollars in a single enforcement action," Dan Hogle of The Black Institute told a May New York State Senate hearing on the economic impact of the pandemic on small businesses.

The report itself goes further, opening with a caution that "New York City and New York State have been using their enforcement capabilities to terrorize, intimidate, harass, and shut down businesses for nearly a century" and these capabilities "have been aimed at minority owned businesses."

Not that minorities alone chafe at mistreatment by government officials. Anybody under their authority is a potential victim.

"A combination of oppressive regulations and a harsh economic climate—including steep rent increases—have forced more and more restaurants to close. Health inspection practices that are often unfair or even abusive have only further exacerbated this issue," New York Assemblyman Ron Kim complained in 2017.

If petty rules bring big abuses, high-stakes laws bring enormous ones.

Those high-stakes laws include drug prohibition, which is at the heart of policing problems in the United States. Interfering in big-bucks transactions involving willing buyers and sellers of forbidden intoxicants has led to stepped-up use of surveillance, infiltration, no-knock raids, civil asset forfeiture, and other tactics that are inherently dangerous. Prohibition has also led to mass arrests of mostly young people, and criminal records that stand between many Americans and employment in the legal economy.

"The federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has existed for more than 40 years, but little attention has been given to the role the agency has played in fueling mass incarceration, racial disparities and other drug war problems," the Drug Policy Alliance noted in 2015.

The Movement for Black Lives, an organized part of the police reform movement, acknowledges part of the problem. A summary of the group's model legislation proposes, in part:

Eliminate federal programs and agencies used to finance and expand the U.S. criminal-legal system, such as the Department of Defense 1033 program, the Edward Byrne-Justice Assistance Grant Program, Community Oriented Policing Services, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The bill would ensure that non-punitive, non-carceral elements of these programs are identified so that they can be transferred to another funding source.

But while the group calls for an end to the drug prohibition that fuels so many dangerous law enforcement interactions with the public, the legislation also proposes a wish list of housing, jobs, education, and other programs. Many might be helpful, but they necessarily come with a price tag that will have to be paid by taxpayers. That's a problem, since tax collectors are cops, too.

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in 1819.

That includes the power to destroy political enemies, dating to long before Elliott Roosevelt admitted that his father, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt "may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution."

But enforcers often abuse their power for no reason more special than that they can.

"To some employees, the taxpayer is the enemy," former Revenue Officer Richard M. Schickel wrote in his self-published 2015 memoir, IRS Whistleblower. "The power of the IRS is the power of FEAR," he added.

Groups on the left aren't the only ones pushing for expansive government activity that requires an extensive enforcement apparatus.

On the right, "new nationalists have decided … that government should force you to choose correctly," (as they see it) Reason's Stephanie Slade warned last year. Those "correct" choices involve regulating social media, banning pornography, rejecting free markets, and, of course, a certain hostility towards immigration.

Then again, many on the right like cops—lots and lots of cops. Open authoritarianism is, at least, honest.

But the political left's happy talk about reforming/defunding/abolishing police comes off as so much lip service when it also calls for vast intrusions into people's lives. How do you forbid landlords to collect rent from their tenants, ban privately owned guns, restructure the economy along "green" lines, criminalize "hate speech," pay for a vastly expanded government, and threaten revolution against those who resist higher taxes without lots of enforcers?

You can't.

And enforcers are cops; they're government employees authorized to use police power to force people to do the bidding of those in public office. Replacing police with police by another name, but with the same duties, powers, flaws, and biases, won't alleviate the problems that come with enforcement of the government's will.

Are Americans really serious about reforming policing? We'll only know if they back off their schemes to use the power of government to bend others to their will.

NEXT: Homeland Security Acting Like 'An Occupying Army' Says Sen. Wyden, After Federal Agents Shoot Peaceful Portland Protester

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But general-purpose cops are only part of the apparatus that governments use to impose their will.

    #Defund Karens

    1. if their pussy husbands can’t control them what chance do I have?

      1. You just need a back-hand like John Mcenroe.

        1. I modeled my whole game after Johnny Mac.

          1. I basically earn Easily at home 10,000$ par month .just do work few hours . last 3 year i was free but now i am happy with this website so i advise you…………. Home Profit System

          2. You cannot be serious! 🙂

    2. Unregistered podcast has a good discussion with Aya
      Gruber concerning carceral feminism and the role it has played in expanding law enforcement. It is only a mild overstatement that a lionshare of enforcement is for the protection and provision of women.

      I somehow doubt the Amys of the world (really, shouldn’t it be Amy at this point) are going to give up their special standing in the name of “justice”, especially given that short of video evidence to the contrary, any woman can summon the police to give any male (but especially blacks) a bad time. If there is such a thing as white privilege, this is it.

      And not even to pick on feminist necessarily. Everyone has their bugbear concerning law.

      But if a group is pushing “listen and believe” as a legal standard, what exactly does reform even mean?

      *cue the direct line that can be traced from feminism to the current drug laws.

      1. Enforcement is the reality of having a state. And as we recently found out, it’s also the reality of not having a state, it’s just the enforcers are more difficult to identify and hold accountable.

        This idea of ‘defunding the police’ is probably the dumbest idea to slither in the mainstream in my lifetime, and that stands against some real doozies.

        Every political faction has its hobby horses they want ‘enforced’, so there will always be a police force. What it comes down to is do you want a police force to stop robbers, muggers, murderers and rapists, or do you want one that kicks in your door when you tweet something questionable. Pick one.

        1. Why not have both? It seems like that is what the majority wants! Let’s give it to them…

        2. Exactly how much of police resources are directed specifically at stopping robbers, muggers, murderers and rapists do you reckon?

          And of that, how uniformly is it applied?

    3. I basically earn Easily at home 10,000$ par month .just do work few hours . last 3 year i was free but now i am happy with this website so i advise you………….Click For Full Detail.

  2. Every new law requires enforcement…

    It’s surprising how many people fail to grasp this. How many times have you seen a BLM-allied individual call for something they don’t like to be outlawed? For more regulation of some human activity that’s spilled the banks of a comfort zone? That’s a call for a state-owned gun to be visited upon someone.

    1. Every law is backed by the threat of death through a chain of escalation if you do not submit to authority.

      1. Yeah, as some of us say, “Never propose a law that you are not willing to kill somebody to enforce.”

      2. You’ll shock and piss people off if you start point this out: every law, every tax, every regulation is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun.

        The vast majority of people have so bought in to the concept of “one man one vote” democracy that they forget that 50.1% can require the other 49.9% to do something they really do not agree to. 51% is not a mandate, it is a complete failure to get any sort of meaningful consensus.

        1. 51% is not a mandate, it is a complete failure

          Presidential elections hinge on such small percentages. And that is a failure.

    2. How many times have you seen a BLM-allied individual call for something they don’t like to be outlawed?

      Pretty much the same number of times I’ve seen a Trump-allied individual – or for that matter a propertarian who calls themselves ‘libertarian’ – call for something they don’t like to be outlawed.

      Libertarians are trapped in a dumbass left-right DeRp mindset as much as the dumbass left-right DeRps. And property ain’t liberty either.

      1. property ain’t liberty either

        So the other kids took their ball and went home because they didn’t like the arbitrary rules you imposed on the game they were playing? Now you support the Progressive slide into socialism because those authoritarians promise to make a world where miscreants, perverts, and the mentally ill are not judged.

        I know a passive-aggressive coward when I smell one. Hard to mistake the odor of soiled pants and sour grapes that permeates your writing.

        1. ^^Best post on the site today.

        2. So you acknowledge that property is the result of an arbitrary rule and not some innate aspect of nature?

          Good. We all want stuff, and we want to pay government to enforce it. Now we can finally move on from false claims that one of us only wants illegitimate stuff. We want mostly the same stuff. The difference is the liberals have thought it through and the libertarians explicitly haven’ thought it through. That’s what you get when you subscribe to an explicitly non-empirical worldview.

          1. No. You did not read what I wrote correctly.

            Regardless, you are regurgitating Marxist bullshit. Here is a clue: whenever you find yourself writing something as vapid as the phrase ‘non-empirical worldview’, you have slipped down the rabbit hole on the left.

            1. It means you don’t care whether evidence supports any of your claims.

              1. My property belongs to me. Evidence supports my claim.

                Marxist ideology led directly to the deaths of well over 100 million people in the last century. Evidence supports my claim.

                You are an asshat. Evidence supports my claim.

                My worldview is pretty damn empirical.

                1. “Belongs” is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

                  1. Try and take my stuff. Then the ‘me’ will be doing most of the work.

                    1. But my guns are bigger, and so are my firearms. Does that make it my stuff under law?

            2. ‘non-empirical worldview’

              I can’t speak to what Tony meant – but the Austrian school was explicitly named and founded as not just overly-rationalist but anti-empirical. The school it was founded in opposition to was the ‘German school’ – which was both empirical and said that even empirical stuff was bound up in place/culture/history (v the Anglo-Saxon belief that empirical = ‘science’). The conflict was the Methodenstreit.

              Like all arguments among Germans, it quickly becomes irrelevant to everyone else and really long-worded. But that anti-empirical approach is why ‘mainstream’ (read Anglo-Saxon) economics has ignored most ‘true’ Austrian school (Hayek and Schumpeter were mostly ‘Austrian’ merely by birth) – and why Austrian school can and will never point to anything in the real world to base their case. It’s all about the perfectly rationalist argument to them. THAT is what makes sense of and explains the world.

        3. Hard to mistake the odor of soiled pants

          Well I’ll take your word that you’re an expert on that odor. Might I suggest – laundry. Since ‘toilet’ doesn’t seem to have impressed itself on your habits.

          1. The old ‘I know you are but what am I’ retort. I had that part about nobody wanting to play with you as a child pegged.

            You have my pity.

      2. And property ain’t liberty either.

        what is it?

        Seems like we know what you don’t like. What DO you like?

        1. “Property” is the fruit of one’s labor. Disregard of property rights is a soft form of slavery.

          1. This country was founded on and fought a war over a certain specific type of property rights. People on one side of that deeply felt their liberty threatened. The people on the other side had no liberty.

            1. Stop with the BS that the country was founded on slavery. It was a point of disagreement from day 1. It is more accurate to say it was founded in spite of disagreements over slavery. When the US formed, legal slavery was the norm in the world.

              1. Well that’s neither here nor there. The point is property is whatever we say it is, and ideals of liberty may have very little to do with it. It was property rights that were used to justify removing liberty in the most extreme way from some humans.

                1. That’s an entirely misplaced way of defining the issue. It was precisely our liberal western values that created the environment in which human beings couldn’t be held as property. Claiming that slavery was a cause of ‘property rights extremism’ is completely reductive.

                  Slavery was abolished BECAUSE of liberal western values, one part of which is the recognition of property rights– among the many others. Those liberal western values are now the very thing that’s under attack, and if the erosion of those values continues unabated, we’ll find out what a world without liberal values really looks like.

                  What cracks me up is we think if we “tear the whole system down” that the people that will swoop in and run everything will be the staff of Buzzfeed.

                  It won’t be. Everything mainstream media and the so-called ‘intellectual elite’ is pining for looks a lot like Iran in 1978.

                  1. “we’ll find out what a world without liberal values really looks like.”

                    Oh, we there are some fairly recent examples we can look to.

                  2. So we agree that the Confederates did not have an adequately evolved sense of western humanist values. What they did have, however, was a strongly held belief in their property rights.

                    1. You know who else believed in property rights?

                2. I think that property rights are an extension of self-ownership: I own myself, and as I engage myself in this world, I own the outcomes, including what I make.

                  My right to self-ownership is my foundational property right, completely incompatible with slavery.

                  You know what is compatible with slavery?

                  “Property is whatever we say it is!”

            2. No it was NOT over “property rights”. Little fuss or conflict arose over who had control over which piece of dirt. There were some notable exceptions, such as when three different ship (property) owners were suddenly deprived of the rightful USE of their property (their commercial ships) for their intended purpose (supplying a source of income for themselves and crews) because a government corporation (The Beitish East India Teae Company) had pulled a fast one over at the docks in Tilbury, suckered the merchant ship owners into taking on their cargoes of tea… which was destined for the COLONIALS (as opposed to the loyalists bowing to the king) believeing that they would be able to disembark their cargoes upon arrival in the port of destination (Boston) and were devastated to learn THEY would have to pay the tax on the tea before it could be unloaded… thus tying up their means of livelihood until such time as they decided to cough up the demanded tax. The solution was to free up the ships by the stealthy removal of the binding “property” (the tea), thus ridding the ships of the unfair restriction.
              That was an anomaly. Worse, but somewhat similar, was the determination of George Three (King) to disarm the colonials lest they stand against his unlawful edicts with force of arms. The bottom line behind the War for Independence was this, spoken by a Patriot some forty years after he stood with John Parker on the Commons at Lexington and faced off three companies of British Regular troops, who had arrived to take the weapons of the men of Lexington. Here is what he said in answer to the question “why were you men out that morning at Lexington”. Response: “They had a mind that they would tell us how we should live, and we had a mind that they wouldn’t.”

              Today, the “they” who have a mind that they would tell us how we should live are everywhere, and after far more than our guns. Tjey are forcing us to wear useless even harmful masks, close our businesses, not travel, deny us the rightful use of our lands, telling us what kinds of homes/structures we may/mayn’t build or occupy, what kiinds of toilets we MUST install, even what kinds of light bulbs we may/mayn’t use. Certin foods we cannot have, demanding useless and unnecessary tarining/certification to do everyday things for others for money (grooming dogs. raiding hair, fixing someone else’s broken windows, working on their cars, cutting their hair, taking ethanol the company has distilled and is legal to sell to people to put it inside their bodies (whiskey, ru, etc) but then using that same alcohol to make hand sanitisers (demanded to be used by those same gummit dweebs, useless and hazardous as it is) turns out to be prohibited. The alcohol they make can be SWALLOWED by humans, byt cannot be RUBBED ON THEIR HANDS. Same stuff.

              talk about “telling us how we should live”. Can’t hardly do anything much without some goverment approval, license, permit, training, fees, inspectioins (costing MORE fees), nd you think we won that war back then?
              How many died of government violence during the “whiskey rebellions” that happened soon after we became a nation? And WHAT was the underlying issue in that conflict?

      3. If you somehow think that my ownership of my stuff affects your liberty, you might be trapped in the dumbass mindset.

        1. You own what I want so I am not free to use it as I like.

      4. “And property ain’t liberty either.”

        Please expand on this.

        1. I mean, I’d agree that they aren’t the same thing, but I don’t understand why that matters.

          It’s not like respecting property private rights is incompatible with liberty. It’s just the opposite—they go hand in hand.

          1. It’s not like respecting property private rights is incompatible with liberty. It’s just the opposite—they go hand in hand.

            That’s not true. There was something in feudal land law/taxation called ‘quitrent’. It was an annual payment – to the sovereign – so that the sovereign would recognize your claim in their court to some land in preference to someone else’s ‘natural right’ to gather wood, forage, sleep, etc. It was not technically a ‘tax’ as we know it because you could always choose not to pay it and the sovereign didn’t expropriate your land for that reason alone. But in that case, the sovereign would find someone who was willing to pay it – and then recognize THEIR claim against yours. Obviously the sovereign did not compensate those whose actual liberties had been infringed – but there absolutely was an implicit agreement that the sovereign would use that revenue source as one of their main revenues and wouldn’t tax stuff willy-nilly.

            Ignoring the particulars of it (which is itself really interesting re our own colonial era) – what is interesting is that that law explicitly recognized that property in land at least WAS explicitly an infringement of someone else’s liberty. And by feudal I don’t mean Black Death era. I mean right through the era of ‘enclosure’ and well into the 19th century. We in the US are uniquely unaware of what it even is because one of the effects of ‘frontier’ was to eliminate quitrent. The Lockean proviso applied to the US uniquely. Until we ran out of frontier and it didn’t.

        2. The notion of liberty defined as ‘self-ownership’ is what leads towards conflating the two. It dates back to Locke – but Locke is specifically talking about property (as justified using a labor theory of value). Homo economicus. Not that people even read Locke. Rather people read someone who summarized someone else who misinterpreted what someone else who overread what Locke wrote wrote.

          That entire notion of liberty is quite limited imo. Human liberty is both broader and far more fragile than property.

      5. I prefer my state to be stopping murderers, thieves and rapists. There’s another faction that wants to visit the police on people who express wrong-think. I know, it’s all swings and roundabouts, as the British say.

        1. Nobody wants to call the police on wrong-think, except maybe Trump. He may want to arrest anyone who doesn’t actively work in the name of his glory. Other than that, people disagreeing with you on Twitter is not the same as calling the cops on you, buttercup.

          1. *clears throat*

            Also, here’s what defunding the police looks like:

            Harry Miller, 53, from Lincoln was contacted on Wednesday by a community cohesion officer following a complaint that had been made about the plant and machinery dealer’s social media posts.

            Citing 30 potentially offensive tweets, the PC singled out a limerick Mr Miller had retweeted which questioned whether transgender women are biological women.

            when an officer told him ‘I need to check your thinking’ in investigation of his ‘transphobic’ tweets

          2. Also.

            For a tire mark on a crosswalk:

            The police department is now investigating the incident, with Cst. Kevin Goodmurphy telling 1130 that the person “[chose] to leave a gesture of hate on a crosswalk that stands for the exact opposite.”

          3. Just to pile on.

            In the U.K. that just doesn’t wash. So, for instance, there’s a law against “incitement to racial hatred,” which is a criminal offense. The new CPS rules mean that the law now applies to anything said online, as well as offline. There also is a law against “incitement to religious hatred,” in case you were wondering.

            Writing in the Guardian, Saunders said: “Left unchallenged, even low-level offending can subsequently fuel the kind of dangerous hostility that has been plastered across our media in recent days.” That is why countering it is a priority for the CPS. “Whether shouted in their face on the street, daubed on a wall or tweeted into their living room, hateful abuse can have a devastating impact on victims.”

            She referred specifically to the extremist hate seen in Charlottesville in the United States recently, saying the new rules were needed because there is a direct correlation between online abuse and violence.

            1. So three anecdotes from foreign lands in which not a single person is in jail. Clearly this should occupy at least 50% of our national political attention. Nothing important going on, after all.

              1. I thought of this one off the top of my head.

                https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye-open-criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-c/

                It’s unlikely that anyone on the left or the right will be able to frivolously jail people for thought crimes anytime soon, but there is a deeply upsetting popular enthusiasm for the idea that seems to be growing. The fact that other Western liberal democracies are doing it already isn’t something to roll your eyes over.

                1. I agree, but the problem is as yet hypothetical. If something is being treated by certain political factions as a crisis when there is no crisis or the risk is insignificant, all the while another actual major crisis is going on that they are failing at responding to, it might just be a distraction.

                  1. it might just be a distraction.

                    Threatening to import Soviet-style oppression is not a distraction from people who call themselves socialists. It is a promise.

                    It continues to amaze me that you underestimate the willingness of the socialist to put you up against the wall and execute you for being the way you are. They have proved it over and over and over.

                    1. I’m less worried about their economic philosophy than about their propensity to think violence is a solution to their problems. Since lefties are harmless as butterflies nowadays (not to say that can’t change), I’ll worry about the neo-Nazis who are actually in charge of stuff and who have polluted the entire internet with calls for the death of leftists.

      6. No property is not property. Property is that which I have created or purchased with money that I have earned.

  3. All Enforcers Are Cops

    Now do social media corporations.

    1. Facebook kills dogs!

      1. Or at least dog whistles?

    2. All Enforcers Are Cops
      Now do social media corporations.

      I… uh… what?

  4. Berkeley is not going to have the police issue traffic tickets any longer; they’re going to have ‘other officers’ do that. Those ‘other officers’ probably hired from the laid-off cops…

    1. Traffic anomaly outreach workers.

      1. Traffic anomaly outreach workers

        Gonna steal that.

    2. A cop by any other name would smell as ______.

      1. Savory, with a hint of applewood?

      2. … sweet as donuts

    3. Should work out fine as long as they are unarmed and do not have arrest powers.
      If someone does not stop to be ticketed, too bad, maybe next time.
      What could go wrong?

      1. I actually like that idea. Have traffic wardens who only have the power to issue driving related citations. If the person fails to stop, get their plates and send them a summons. If they are doing something truly dangerous, call in the police.

    4. I just found out the village I live in does not give issue tickets for stop sign violations anymore . The reason? It costs them $75 to send a cop down to traffic court and the county only reimburses the town $25.

      1. Policing should not pay for itself through fines it generates. Police spending is an expense

      2. Did they also stop mandatory jury duty?

    5. This defund-the-police thing is going to be wall-to-wall yuks as they roll it out.

      And it’s going to cost 4x as much as the regular police. Clipboard-wielding social workers and other “non-traditional” police (100% oif whom will be protected by qualified immunity) are going to be dispatched for all kind of calls that will be identified on a matrix put together by intersectional twinks. Whole new departments will be created. But, whenever any of those same social workers head out to a call, they’ll be escorted by a deputy, or a pair of deputies. So we’ll have 2x to 3x the number of people and agencies responding to calls. And god help us the first time said social worker is seriously injured or killed and sues the state for not providing adequate protection during their duties.

      1. How long until the first innocent person is shot my an armed social worker?

        1. How long until the first “social worker” is shot because no one is going to take them seriously?

      2. Outpatient mental health services – robust, 24/7, community-based, full staffed outpatient mental health services – would be able to pretty much take over the reponse to individuals having a mental health episode without immediate danger to others. I agree that creating more response workers wouldn’t solve the problem. But if there was a better social services destination than hospital or jail, that organization could deal with their clients. There are intervention teams in various cities which are reported to be successful; yes they include police officers. This would have to include drug treatment expansion, since people who are high and acting out are also a source of police calls, and when they have to detox in jail they sometimes die.
        I am hoping that the “defund” conversation can shine a light on what it takes to go after organized crime, versus all the intentional misses. People with homicidal ideation or command hallucinations are part of the crime landscape, but so are people with a gun just working for their boss. What is the libertarian take on organized crime?

    6. i’ve thought they should do something like this, or strip the regular police of any ability to go beyond the reason for the stop. no searches, no nothing.
      If you pull someone over for a broken taillight, that is the upper bound of the consequences for the driver.

      i realize there are surely some tweaks that would need to be made but as a high level concept its probably worth exploring

  5. You presume the people who want to defund the police also are not interested in telling people what to do. I suspect they have not quite realized that having less police also implies less micromanaging law and regulation.

    1. You presume the people who want to defund the police also are not interested in telling people what to do. I suspect they have not quite realized that having less police also implies less micromanaging law and regulation.

      I suspect they’ve had such realizations and don’t care. The emoting leviathan cares not with which innocents’ blood its thirst is slaked!

      1. Pretty sure they just want to replace the current crop of cops with Party enforcers (a red guard, if you will)

        1. Exactly this. Less criminal police, more political police

    2. I can envision a society with less police and *more* regulation. Drones! People can sit behind a desk, review drone footage and then write a ticket and attach it to your license plate, or your address, or your retinal scan or whatever. It would not require that many police walking around. It would require some desk workers, and a maintenance shed for the drones, and a bay full of drone pilots. There could be rules against anything and everything and the punishment could be delivered in a largely remote fashion. Link it to the IRS and they could just attach your tax return. No, if I can think it up, someone else has too.

  6. PIGS…..to be replaced with unarmed Community Public Safety Neighborhood Patrols, meant to issue citations for hate speech and COVID-mask violations.

    They will form a Public Safety Employee Union in response to violent confrontations resulting in injured officers, and they will be issued sidearms, full protective gear, tasers, sidearms, SWAT-team support and negotiated immunity for killing dogs, mask violators, and dissidents. New Age.

    1. Well, what worked so well for so long in the British Commonwealth was the fact that an attack on the unarmed cops was a mandatory and damn near immediate death sentence.

      1. Bobbies on bicycles two-by-two was meant for another time and demographic.

      2. So was stealing a handkerchief.

    2. Front-line enforcers end up conforming to the enforcement biases of the ruling political philosophy.

  7. Absolutely the entire system is responsible for Systematic White Supremacy. This is why we must #DefundRacistEd.

    I have been told by the Smart People that racism is institutionalized in our country. The very government itself is a system of white supremacy. How can this not include Public Education?

    The evidence of systematic racism is clear in how Police impact blacks. They arrest, charge and kill blacks disproportionately. Well, the same is true with schools. The suspend, expel and under-teach black children disproportionately. Anyone who has read White Fragility knows that Whites are inherently racist. Deep down, they have been INDOCTRINATED by the frameworks of white supremacy. Some white suburban kid isn’t being indoctrinated by the POLICE. They never see police. If they are being brainwashed to accept white supremacy, it is obviously by the pedagogues who learn at our white supremacist universities and are TRAINED, CERTIFIED AND LICENSED by our racist governments!

    1. I think you are on to something there:
      Defund Arts and Sciences
      Defund Public Education
      Defund Antifa
      Defund the Governor and Mayor

      1. Defund the Treasury?
        Wouldn’t that be fun to watch?

      2. Hey this is a trick isn’t it. Your plan is to make everyone so stupid that libertarianism looks like a serious idea.

        1. If the idea behind defund the police is to root out corrupt and ineffective succubi in the public policing sector, I see no reason why the same shouldn’t be on the table for everything that is funded by (racist) tax dollars. If they’re (racist) public servants, we’d better make sure that they’re serving. I say we do (racist) DA’s offices next followed by (racist) K-12 ed. I want to make sure we eliminate every ounce of that systemic racism. You know, for race equality.

          1. We can just do cops. They have a racial diversity problem that other government agencies don’t. And they shoot people.

            1. Defunding WhiteAntifa and its offshoots, which are indirectly funded by oligarchs and indirectly supported by progressive government officials and agencies, would be a more thoughtful idea. Cops can have civilian oversight committees and, unlike domestic-terror Antifa groups, and despite their obvious shortcomings (most of which are due to their strong union contracts which have immunity clauses), they don’t generally burn, loot, rape, and murder as part of their daily agenda.

        2. Hey, there’s already plenty of people so stupid that Big Government seems like an answer to problems, so why not?

  8. Every law forces someone to do something they don’t want to do. Otherwise you don’t need a law. Should we have fewer laws? Sure. But the standard for what laws to keep and what laws to ditch can’t just be “does it force someone to do something they don’t want to”.

    1. I think that is the point- note that he didn’t say “stop forcing people to do what they don’t want to do”. He called for “backing off” these efforts.

      The reason he (or whoever ) wrote the tagline that way is to specifically point out that laws are forcing people to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. People have a hard time connecting that point. They call for a law against (say) sugary drinks and don’t think about the force. They just think sugary drink consumption goes down because people see its a law and stop. The “Threat of force” part is minimized at the least, or ignored all together.

      His point was to say “We should stop having so many laws”.

      1. Unrealistic people want enforcers to become Angels.

        Realistic people seek to simply limit the number of interactions these all too human enforcers have with the rest of us.

        Sure, maybe there are some process/training/hiring tweaks that might also push the needle closer to Angel. But let’s be realistic about our expectations.

    2. But the standard for what laws to keep and what laws to ditch can’t just be “does it force someone to do something they don’t want to”.

      The basis should be whether the law prohibits individuals from encroaching on the rights of life, liberty, and property of another individual. That standard alone would provide for about a 90% reduction in current laws.

      1. Sure. But the devil is in the details of just what counts as that. It is not as simple as it seems.

        1. It will be great when we get to the point where we can quibble over details. Until then, we can work on the WoD, etc.

        2. It is simple, does the action involve the initiatory use of force.

  9. Are Americans really serious about reforming policing? We’ll only know if they back off their schemes to use the power of government to bend others to their will.

    No, they’re not serious. No need to wait, predictable people are predictable. They don’t really want to reform police, they just want to the power to decide who’s face gets stepped on.

    1. They don’t really want to reform police, they just want to the power to decide who’s face gets stepped on.

      This.

      Currently, the progressive left is silencing who they want silenced through control of news outlets and vigilant intimidation of corporations via social media. They are fine with defunding the police because they don’t need these police who they can sacrifice on the altar of racial justice to get their Green Lives Matter/Black New Deal sleeper agents voted into power.

      Once local police are impotent, cities will beg the newly anointed Federal government to come save them. Agents unaccountable to local authority do not have a good track record of upholding the Constitution.

    1. It also rocks!

      1. and cools my house

        1. temperate. lives. matter.

  10. How do you forbid landlords to collect rent from their tenants, ban privately owned guns, restructure the economy along “green” lines, criminalize “hate speech,” pay for a vastly expanded government, and threaten revolution against those who resist higher taxes without lots of enforcers?

    Details, schmetails, you white supremacist. This is the era of magical thinking. It will work out because THE PEOPLE want it to!

  11. Tucille, you won’t get any traction here with that kind of pro-liberty talk.

  12. I just read a libertarian article on Reason. Am I in the middle of a fever dream?

  13. “Those “correct” choices involve regulating social media, banning pornography, rejecting free markets, and, of course, a certain hostility towards immigration.”

    FFS. Who defends bankers and their federal reserve enablers? Yeah, bastions of free markets and currencies while promoting freedom when they are not devaluing the currency and engaging in viewpoint discrimination against business owners (gun makers for 1). There is a reason so many bankers kill themselves. Per your link, Carlson is off-base suggesting there are “spooky elites?” Where am I and how did I get here?

    Speaking of viewpoint discrimination, why wouldn’t the right attack social media that also engages in viewpoint discrimination against them while promoting lies and denying alternative views? Spare me the BS about tech giants’ property while they enjoy special protections and have assumed a role as a public square. Talk to me when the playing field is leveled by markets and government. Tech giants that de-platform and de-monetize those they disagree with. Yeah, that’s some real support of free markets. Google is even looking to manipulate the next election.

    People should be hostile toward immigration when it is not serving the real public interest aka middle and lower class working people, and the exploitative elites instead, by reducing wages and damaging the republic’s freedoms. Assimilation anyone or is this about returning to tribalism that so much good gun powder, firewater, small pox infested blankets and immigration laws were used to eradicate? Their suffering should not have been in vein. Who wants to champion Ted Kennedy’s Immigration & Nationality Act of 1965. Discrimination is discrimination.

    Plenty to criticize the right about but the main points presented here ain’t it. One should not have to resort to over-reach, more akin to a reach around, in an effort to appear even-handed.

  14. Meanwhile, Gov Whitmer signs an order making willfully not wearing a mask in an indoor public space or an outdoor crowded space a misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine. Apparently, without even a by your leave from the legislature.

  15. But while the group calls for an end to the drug prohibition that fuels so many dangerous law enforcement interactions with the public, the legislation also proposes a wish list of housing, jobs, education, and other programs. Many might be helpful, but they necessarily come with a price tag that will have to be paid by taxpayers.

    Man, what a breezy overview of the marxist manifesto that is the BREATHE act. Who is this even written for? It’s a pretty terrifying list of reforms if you’re a libertarian. I’d encourage everyone who hasn’t yet to go and read it.

    It actually starts out kind of promising if you look at just the first article or two, and then it quickly descends into a Stalinist nightmare.

    1. It actually starts out kind of promising if you look at just the first article or two, and then it quickly descends into a Stalinist nightmare.

      Which requires a whole lot of enforcers. But yeah, the primary issue is how much it’ll cost.

  16. “How do you forbid landlords to collect rent from their tenants, ban privately owned guns, restructure the economy along “green” lines, criminalize “hate speech,” pay for a vastly expanded government, and threaten revolution against those who resist higher taxes without lots of enforcers?”

    See, the problem is, we’ve set up a policing system that’s designed to hate and commit violence against brown people. What we need to do, is defund them, and set up a policing system that’s designed to hate and commit violence against rich and/or white people.

  17. You know who else liked to tell people what to do?

  18. “Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence,”

    This is so painfully obvious.

    Eric Garner didn’t die because we selling “loosies”.

  19. Can we outlaw driving a minivan and having a chicken-butt haircut for like a week? Have the Karens spend a night in jail and get treated like a farm animal by pissed-off sociopaths and then see if you think our system is just.

    1. Can we outlaw driving a minivan and having a chicken-butt haircut for like a week?

      Once again, Tony, you and I totally agree on something.

    2. Can we outlaw driving a minivan and having a chicken-butt haircut for like a week?

      I thought the chicken-butt haircut was a gay thing.

        1. I like the gays and the trans, but the yesbians weird me out.

  20. >backing off efforts to force people to do things they don’t want to do.

    Yeah, who the heck is a crossing guard to tell me I can’t do 100 mph in a school zone?

  21. Oh, please.
    We need more cops to ensure the people do as their told when they’re told and most importantly, like it.
    We need more cops in the bedrooms to make sure everyone is having the correct form of sex our self-evident betters approve of.
    We need more cops in the bathrooms so the masses are wiping their fat asses with an approve upward stroke instead of the ill fated downward stroke.
    We need more cops in the grocery stores so the little people pick the right foods to eat.
    We need more cops in our indoctrination centers so our offspring will be properly indoctrinated in the politically correct Marxist fashion.
    We need more cops at work to ensure what we do and say doesn’t offend any of our beloved hypersensitive snowflakes.
    I could go on, but I’m sure you will agree we need more cops to ensure we all make the right decisions because we’re all so stupid and weak to make the right decisions like real grownups do.

  22. If I hated a race, I might campaign to flood all of their countries with MILLIONS of people that are not their race, and tell everyone to “mix in” until no people of that kind were left.
    If anyone objected, I would scream the R-word! at them and get them fired from their jobs.
    If I hated a certain race, I might do that, but I am not doing that.
    Anti-Whites are doing it to White people in EVERY & ONLY White countries.
    It’s WHITE Genocide!
    Anti-Racist is just a codeword for anti-White.

    1. Sounds like you need to do a lot more lying back and thinking of England.

  23. Why doesn’t the poster mention corruption? Many enforcers enforce chiefly to solicit bribes. Every law, all enforcement, enables corruption. Bribes.
    Cost of doing business, right? Cost of living.
    Right?

  24. “”Our 2019 report showed that [State Liquor Authority] licensed businesses within minority census tracts were raided at 4 times the rate of less diverse neighborhoods…”

    Quick note here.
    A neighborhood that has 99% whites and 1% blacks is more diverse than one that has 100% blacks.

    A neighborhood that has 50% whites, 25% blacks, and 25% Latinos is more diverse than one that has 50% blacks and 50% Latinos.

    Diversity does not mean “non-white.” It means “diversity,” which means that its component parts are varied from one another.

    1. When they use a word, it means exactly what they want it to mean and nothing more.

  25. I basically earn Easily at home 10,000$ par month .just do work few hours . last 3 year i was free but now i am happy with this website so i advise you………… Click For Detail.

  26. Google effectively work and google pays me consistently and consistently only $5K to $8K for accomplishing on the web telecommute. I am a universty understudy and I work n my low maintenance only 2 to 3 hours every day effectively from home. Presently every one can procure additional money for doing on the web home framework and make a decent life by simply open this site and adhere to guidelines on this page… …Heres what I do……ReadMore.

  27. ( Stay Home And Work At Home ) you can build your own business at home…CLICK HERE.

  28. I basically earn Easily at home 10,000$ par month .just do work few hours . last 3 year i was free but now i am happy with this website so i advise you………… ReadMore.

  29. Very efficiently written information. It will be beneficial to anybody who utilizes it, including me. Keep up the good work. For sure i will check out more posts. This site seems to get a good amount of visitors.

  30. “Real police reform requires backing off efforts to force people to do things they don’t want to do”

    Police: “Stop murdering that man.”
    Killer: “I don’t want to.”
    Police: “Okay, then. Have a nice day.”

  31. “All Enforcers Are Cops”

    And in this simple statement lies the key to the Fascist Left’s interest in ‘Defund the Police’ drivel. The Police, named as such, operate under a couple of hundred years of law, regulation, and precedent. When the courts actually enforce these, they seriously hinder the police’s usefulness to the petty busybodies of the Left. So, defund the police. Then, when it becomes obvious that some form of law enforcement is needed, institute an agency under some other name that (until the courts catch up to the deception, if they ever do) will operate under far fewer restrictions. In short, defund the police, fund the Stasi.

  32. The complete lack of understanding, of what the law is and more importantly, is not, along with the absolute fallacy of the authority of public servants, is STAGGERING.

    1. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online..

      ===============►Home Profit System

  33. Real reform is privatizing police services. Decades of government failures proves the only solution to government failures is to privatize everything.

Please to post comments