Illusions
and Cost: A look at the Western State Security Apparatus
by Overwatch
In my last article, I attempted to
explain time preferences and to a lesser degree, opportunity cost. As
a refresher, opportunity cost is whatever you give up to make the
choices that you make. As an example: If you decide to go to a movie
instead of going out to eat, your opportunity cost is going out to
eat. Opportunity cost applies to both time and money. I want to use
this economic principle and address one of the most basic functions
of coercive government: The Justice System, to include but not
limited to police, courts, prisons, executive administration, etc.
Even the minarchist accepts the
need for government to provide these functions, and the legitimacy
thereof. To talk disparagingly of policemen, courts, or anything else
related to law creation/enforcement/punishment, is to be eyed as a
"criminal sympathizer", or possibly a criminal in fact. Why
would any "law abiding citizen" have a problem with the
boys in blue or the venerable judges? I will attempt to address two
objective reasons here: Illusions and Cost.
It is no secret that the domestic
security apparatus in the United States is larger than ever. Police
departments are purchasing drones and tanks, the Border Patrol has
checkpoints all along the border, the TSA inspects everyone boarding
a plane, security camera networks abound in midscale and large
cities. This apparatus is not free, but the gross expense is
justified in the name of "safety". But does the apparatus
actually provide safety? If so, safety for and from what?
Let's start with police. The most
iconic of all local state functionaries, the propaganda says that
cops do the dirty work in the streets of Everytown, USA so that we
may sleep safe in our beds. Is this true? Let's take a closer look.
First, we must identify the threat.
In this sense, the threats to the individual are murder, rape, theft,
and assault. How do police protect you from these attacks? The
Supreme Court has specifically ruled that the police are under no
obligation to protect you (Castle Rock vs. Gonzales). So what are we
paying them for? Glorified cleanup crews, in the case of legitimate
crimes. Theft in many cases isn't even followed up on, and the number
of violent crimes against the average citizen are startlingly small
in a statistical sense.
Police do have their hands full
though. With what? The War on Drugs, and crimes against the
state. In other words, victimless crimes. Drug laws, speed
limits, licenses and regulatory fee enforcement. Are you any safer
when there is a drug bust? Potentially, but why was there a "Drug
operation" of "thugs" operating to begin with? The
consequences of arbitrary state laws. Do you feel any safer when you
see the patrol car hiding behind some bushes next to the highway? Of
course not.
This does not even begin to cover the
cost of prisons, not only monetarily, but on the fabric of society
itself. By treating people who commit victimless "crimes"
as criminals, the incentive to not participate in actual criminal
activity is eroded, families are fractured, and resentment against
"society" grows.
So we spend billions on police and
prisons, who not only are under no obligation to keep us safe, but
actively work to make our lives hell if we so much as step outside of
ever shifting, arbitrary lines. This is certainly not freedom, and we
receive only the illusion of security in the tradeoff. What is a
voluntary alternative approach?
Let's say 5% of everything you make
goes to pay for the law enforcement apparatus. If you make the
national average of $41,000 per year, $2,000 goes to this cause. What
could you otherwise do with those earnings to actually provide a
measure of safety for yourself and/or those around you, without the
added assault on your freedom?
Maybe you and your neighbors could
pool this saved money and hire an actual night watchman. Maybe
you could purchase a firearm and requisite training/accessories.
Maybe you could install your own security system. Also, the money and
effects thereof would accumulate over time. So this year you purchase
the firearm and open and insurance policy against loss by
theft/murder/assault. Next year you purchase the security system. The
following year you hire a security firm. If the security firm fails
to protect you and/or your property, they may be fired, unlike the
police, giving them an actual incentive to perform their job. Over
time you may be able to boast quite the comprehensive personal safety
system.
Let us say that even with all these
different steps, a crime is committed. Let's say that someone manages
to steal something from your property. Insurance covers the loss, and
may or may not review crime statistics in your area to see if rates
may need to rise (just as car insurance does in areas prone to
carjacking). Your loss is mitigated and you may move on. Why are you
concerned about the thief "getting away with it"? If the
population has taken general measures of protection and defense, and
he continues to attempt to steal, he cannot be eternally "lucky".
If he is, it's no worse than the police taking your case and tossing
it into the back of a filing cabinet. If, in a popular argument, the
thief is stealing because there is no "social safety net"
and he is trying to eat, even more reason to let it go.
Let us say something worse occurs,
such as murder. In general, the same thing applies. Insurance against
murder protects the financial situation of the family, and if you had
already taken precautions for physical security, nothing the police
could/would have done would have changed the outcome. So now we are
left with the problem of "justice". What is the objective
difference between the investigation/court/prison process and either
"vigilantism" or doing nothing? Certainly little difference
from the position of the person assaulted and/or the bereaved family.
Conversely, the cost for the former process only adds insult to
injury. The total number of homicides in the US in 2007 was 18,361.
The conviction rate was only 61% in 2007. So we are willing to spend
billions of dollars a year, to ensure that 11,200 people in a country
of over 300 million are "put in a timeout" (which costs
even more). This doesn't even go into how many of the homicides were
related to the "War on Drugs". Also, we have no way of
knowing if those 18,361 people may have been able to protect
themselves had it not been for the cost and existence of the law
enforcement apparatus. It certainly doesn't matter to them after the
fact that the boys in blue show up with the chalk.
Contrary to popular belief, the state
and it's law enforcement apparatus creates criminals, it does not
protect the population from them. Of course, the smarter criminals
find ways to work from inside the state instead of against it. Think
about that the next time you see a smiling politician, a police
cruiser, or a stern military officer.
No comments:
Post a Comment