The traditional motto of the police department is to “Serve and Protect.” The police are supposed to protect the innocent from the criminal, so it might come as shocking that the Hong Kong protesters are calling for the abolition of the Hong Kong police department. Of course, Westerners might read this and think, “Well, obviously they would want to get rid of the police! They live under the tyrannical regime of COMMUNISTS!” No one would bat an eye at someone wanting to abolish the Gestapo in Nazi Germany. Not in a modern context, anyway. The police becomes the arm of government oppression when the system is rigged against the people (or a specific demographic of people). Whoever dictates what is legal and what is criminal uses the intrinsic violence of the police (to either restrain, detain, or attack) as the power to enforce its decision.

Don’t look at me, I just enforce what’s right and wrong. Who decides what’s right or wrong? Stop asking questions.
For added nuance, the Black Lives Matter movement made a similar call to abolish the police in the United States. When white supremacy is the systemic norm, black people become viewed as criminally-inclined compared to their white counterparts, so the police become the manifestation of that racist imbalance. When race is criminalized, when poverty is criminalized, when mental health is criminalized, when drug abuse is criminalized, then intrinsic police violence becomes directed at those demographic. Getting rid of the cops, in theory, would force us to confront the problems within these demographics non-violently.
If drug use was no longer illegal, then we would need to help drug addicts instead of locking them up. Treatment would become the default. If we could no longer lock up the poor, we would have to find them stable housing and make sure they had enough to support themselves so they would no longer need to game the system in order to survive. Mental health would somewhat ironically become a health issue, and those whose underlying issues causes them to act out in anti-social behaviours could only be helped instead of punished. We would probably have to shift our cultural view of violence as being the solution to all our problems so that those who commit violence to solve their problems would do less of that, too. We would need to refocus on rehabilitation as a solution, on help as a solution, on compassion as a solution. Cuz if we didn’t, society would collapse into a miasma of inhuman chaos and brutality!!
And that’s the thing about abolishing the police. If the monopoly on “legitimate” violence dissolves, a power vacuum appears. It’s why libertarianism is a terrible idea: if the government is abolished, then those with the most power (corporations) would step up and dominate with their unchecked and unregulated sovereignty. If the police disappear, then those currently with power, and this could be as little power as an abusive husband to as much power as a drug kingpin, will be able to execute that power without regulation.

Quick! Call the BLM movement to remove him from the house!
This isn’t to disregard the absolutely solid arguments that both the Hong Kong protesters and Black Lives Matter movement make. The police, without a doubt, are the arm of systemic oppression within the state apparatus. The goal should always be anarchism. The issue is always the method of achieving that. The problem with libertarianism (or anarcho-capitalism) is that it wishes for anarchy within the cultural context of today. If we cede police power to anarchism within our current societal context, the violence that exists within our world now will continue to manifest itself; simply in new, unchecked ways.
I believe in a more incrementalist approach: similar to social workers whose goals are ultimately to end the apprehension of children from families, the goal of the police should be to work themselves out of a job. We obviously need to work on cultural transition, poverty reduction, race relations, mental health issues, and so on, but so long as power imbalances exist, then having a police force that is even minimally under popular control (in that we in the West have a small say in who writes their paychecks and holds them accountable) is better than allowing the unchecked power of some other violent agency to shape our legal and social framework. What we need is a new world. In order to reach that new world, we should no longer look at the police as a static necessity, but as a dynamic institution geared towards its own demise.
You may be misinterpreting the function of the police, which is to protect and serve the status quo of the state in an exercise of power and control. It’s not about the people in it.
It reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode, where the title of some alien book is ‘To Serve Mankind’, but it’s a cookbook. 😉
No one is going to work himself out of a job on purpose. Human beings don’t work that way. It’s a conflict of interest. They don’t work for the public good. They don’t even necessarily work for their employers’ good. They work first for the steady paycheck, and secondly for the power rush.
This is why the state doesn’t wither away. The state is created for the purposes of society, but then continues to exist for its own purposes. Democracy is not precisely rule by the people. It’s more like an ongoing negotiation between the people and the state. Elected officials are the middlemen between the people and the state.
The police are the enforcement arm of the government. If there are no police, the government can’t function. Any gripe you have with the police is a gripe with the government.
Before you can come up with a substitute for the police, you need to come up with a substitute for the state. No one has ever managed that.
vote for your local libertarian candidate. it’s not a crock
Whether libertarians know how to govern we’ll never know, because they don’t know how to win elections.
There are riots and looting, and people are trying to sell the idea of abolishing the police.
I see stories of locals using guns to defend their own stores from looters. Could this become a trend? Be your own police?
I am planning on writing a blog about looting in the near future (though I admit I have been slacking), but I can respond briefly here as well.
People are predominantly calling to defund the police (redistribute funding from military-style weapons and vehicles and eliminate certain police responsibilities like mental health checks and using that money toward housing initiatives, or using alternative professionals like social workers to engage with the population). A few are calling to fully abolish the police, but mostly it’s cutting the costs of a bloated, systemically-violent police force.
Riots and looting can be more understood in the same vein as someone who punches a wall when they’re angry, on a larger scale. They see and personally experience things like rampant police brutality (here is a handy montage of police violence collected only within the last couple of weeks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEy-xtIQJkA&), and lash out accordingly. You can certainly make the argument of disproportional violence being meted out in response to police violence, but then you have to get into how much property damage is equivalent to the on-going loss of life at the hands of the institution that is tasked with “protecting” the public?
And then the current policing institution focuses more on the peaceful protesters than on the looters anyway (10% of arrests on looters, which leaves 90% of arrests for the peaceful protesters, according to the head of the LAPD: https://deadline.com/2020/06/lapd-chief-michael-moore-george-floyds-death-is-on-looters-hands-1202948867/). And as to store owners, even a local FOX News affiliate was able to witness the police come and arrest black store owners as everyone was trying to direct them towards the real looters who were getting away: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-handcuff-good-samaritans-protect-store-looters/
I would also be cautious in believing the justifications of “defense against looters” when it comes to violent civilian patrols, since it can blur the authentic motives: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/04/philadelphia-armed-white-men-george-floyd-protests
Whatever the trend may be, and I doubt anyone is calling for vigilante justice as a legitimate solution, I hope it’s AWAY from a domestic military operation.
I don’t accept any argument that references “authentic motives.” We don’t have the power to read minds, people lie and dissemble all the time, and so we rarely, if ever, can know someone else’s motive.
Besides, all that matters is what people do, What makes someone a looter? The fact that he loots. I don’t care about his unknowable reasons. I don’t care about his excuses, or the excuses offered for him. He’s a looter.
Vigilantes emerge when the “legitimate” law enforcement has failed. So do protection rackets. In either case, blame the local governments. They created the problem of bad policing.
Then there’s the lone citizen with a gun defending himself or his own (castle doctrine.) He’s not out to defend the community. Is he a vigilante? Is he superior to the vigilante? Because we know he won’t try to become a police force or a protection racket. You need a gang for that.
Intention is literally bound in law. It’s the difference between 1st degree murder and manslaughter, and why those who do not have complete mental faculties are held to a lesser standard for meeting justice because they are not in control of their actions. It also provides a necessary context. If someone steals because they have a criminal record that prevents legal employment and so they must find some other way to put food on their table, ignoring that motive means that the crime is likely going to keep happening because it is a systemic issue that is causing the problem. It’s like ignoring how people get cancer; if we ignored cigarettes because someone just *is* a cancer patient, then people would keep getting cancer and we would be oblivious.
Someone who creates their own laws and enforces them violently with no regard for the society around them is a tyrant.
So much the worse for law. But I’m working on a blog post of my own about that. Will get back to you.
[…] Abolish the Police | Blog for Chumps […]