The Disconnect: Why Government "Services" Suck

How can we hold, let's say, a baker, a butcher, a cleaner, a grocer, or pretty much any other person offering goods or services on the market accountable? How do we influence and direct their behavior so that a certain standard or quality is maintained? One way, the peaceful, civilized, non-statist way, is simply by deciding whether or not we do business with them. If I, one day, buy a loaf of bread from a baker, and it turns out to be of very poor quality, I will probably not go to that same baker again, but rather take my business elsewhere. This process, the process of uncoerced deliberation, choice, and action of individuals in a free market, allows customers to either reward businesses they deem proper with more business, or correct businesses they feel perform substandard by going to a competitor, and thus guarantees a certain level of quality of the goods and services provided. Pretty straightforward, right?

Now look at services provided by state agents and see if the same applies. Look at, for example, the police. People scream for "police accountability". However, since there is a disconnect between police "revenue" (in quotation marks because it's amassed through taxation, and "revenue" implies a voluntary interaction, which taxation isn't) and the services they (supposedly) provide, there is very little that can be done to hold them accountable, other than just trust them and politicians to solve any issue. "We've investigated ourselves, and found we did nothing wrong." Sound familiar? The same goes for every other product or service funded through taxation. And we all trust civil "servants" so well, don't we? Politicians in particular, amirite? Do you see the problem? The only way we could possibly have some meaningful influence on the behavior of police, is if we could switch to another "safety-provider", but since agents of the state have violently monopolized this sector, there's no escaping their control. The only possible way, really, to try and deal with the problem of "police accountability", is to eliminate the role of the state in the protection sector entirely and let the free market run its course. I mean, would you support a violent gang of thugs calling themselves "the police", whose primary "job" is to harass, aggress against, and extort peaceful people, by voluntarily giving them your money, like you would a baker?

Please don't jump to conclusions and assume that this is a plea for some sort of "justice for the rich only"-type society. Think about it, seriously. The majority of people isn't rich. For a free market justice system to work, its players would have to be recognized as legitimate and respectable. There's no way a majority of people would view them as such if they served the well-off only (which is pretty much what the "justice system" is amounting to now, under statism, since rich, well-connected assholes have the money to bribe or otherwise influence (e.g. blackmail) power wielding agents of the state, which would be impossible, were there no power wielding agents of the state to bribe to begin with). Do you see what I'm getting at? Please, don't fool yourself, and acknowledge this problem. It's uncharted territory, which might be scary, like so many things new, sure, but it's not something we can't overcome. The people over at Peacekeeper and Cell 411, for instance, are working hard to provide a voluntary, community driven alternative to state "protection", and the possibilities are endless. This is only the beginning. Not to mention that there is already a market for private security and justice. Its potential is just being squandered by state violence.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." - Frédéric Bastiat

If you have a hard time envisioning protection and justice provided by the free market, I suggest you check out some of the following material.

Have a great day.

• TEXAS TOWN FIRES ENTIRE POLICE DEPARTMENT, CRIME DROPS BY 61% - ARTICLE - on the privatization of protection and security
• Why Economic Freedom? Here's Why - LECTURE - bestselling author Tom Woods makes the case for economic and monetary freedom to a general audience
• The Economics of the Police State - LECTURE - also by Tom Woods
• The Market for Security - LECTURE - by Bob Murphy
• The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated summary - VIDEO - "David Friedman is an economist, political philosopher, and the author of many books including The Machinery of Freedom, wherein he lays the groundwork for a society based exclusively on voluntary transactions. In this Exploring Liberty lecture, Friedman discusses the main premises of The Machinery of Freedom and offers a few additional conclusions he has reached in the years after the first edition of the book was published in 1973."
• But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? - ARTICLE - also by Bob Murphy