Privatize the Police!

I constantly advocate the privatization of government functions, particularly security and law enforcement. This shooting in Minneapolis is the most recent officer-involved shooting to grace the cover of national news, and it's just another example of the problems inherent in a monopolized security market.

The story follows a similar beat to other senseless police-related shootings. Police responded to a call about a sexual assault, pulled into an alleyway, and were preparing to respond when they heard a loud sound. That's when the victim and the original caller, Justine Ruszczyk, approached the driver's side of their vehicle. The officer in the passenger seat drew his weapon and fired across the vehicle at her, shooting her and killing her.

^{Image courtesy of Pixabay.com}

Let's set aside, for a moment, that a police officer shot someone who'd called 911 since it was likely they didn't know who she was. Two police officers heard a loud sound, saw someone approach their vehicle, and one of them shot them dead. Either he killed her before she said anything, or they engaged in conversation with the woman and he killed her afterward. If the former, why the fuck are they cops if they're going to assume that any loud sound means they're about to fight for their lives? If it's the second, there is no possible excuse for it. I don't have any more details than that, so I can't speak intelligently to it, but either way looks bad.

But beyond that, it's just a symptom of a larger problem: the monopolization of security service by state agencies. The problems with monopolizing any industry are numerous, but particularly in the provision of security does it become a serious problem. Coupled with groups of individuals claiming to be the state, and thus the ultimate arbiters of decision-making in a given jurisdiction, it creates an enormous moral hazard. At that point, not only are these organizations in charge of deciding right or wrong, they can determine whether or not their agents have done right or wrong. This is irrespective of any other outside observer's determination, even if a violation is blatantly obvious and a victim is easily and readily identifiable.

That really sums up the first problem with monopolized security services: there is no one else to go to.

Have an issue with how a police department handles certain cases or certain procedures they follow? Take a number. Have a problem with them enforcing laws you don't agree with? Tough cookies. Prefer to have a private security service? Too bad, the police have jurisdiction over your property whether or not you want them to. In the event they do wrong, or fail to follow procedure, the only arbiter you can appeal to is the same arbiter responsible for establishing the police in the first place. In reality, cases won against police wrong-doing happen in spite of the criminal justice system, not because of it.

The second problem is the inversion of incentives that happens.

Private firms have a vested interest in providing quality service, which, in the free or mostly-free market, means they will compete with each other to be more effective at preventing crime and securing property. Private security firms that aren't capable of doing so will be overtaken by better firms, or their market share will be divided between more firms. This doesn't happen with police, and it can't. So, rather than police departments losing funding because they're unable to control crime, they receive more funding. This creates a perverse incentive to report more crime or criminalize victimless activities for the purpose of securing additional funding. Case in point, civil asset forfeiture. In no reasonable person's mind would simply possessing a large sum of cash be a crime; who's the victim? However, police departments in many states in the US can seize that money from you - many times with the vaguest reasonable suspicion - and the burden falls to you to prove that you had a good reason for having that money. Incentives matter, and they affect police departments the same as people.

Finally, that police departments are shielded from market forces and, to a large extent, liability creates the same problem as any monopoly on force does: it attracts sociopaths and violent people.

Any method of controlling people is going to create incentive for violent and sociopathic people to pursue that method. Creating a whole class of people and a profession whose sole purpose is coercing compliance to statutory laws will inevitably attract sociopaths and aggressive, violent people to it. The same is true for government in general, but with police, the effect is far more direct. Sociopaths spouting gibberish in a marble building somewhere is one thing, but a sociopath with a gun screaming at you to comply or die is a much more direct threat to your person.

This is why the provision of security must be privatized if you, me, or anyone else is going to live more peaceful lives. Private security firms don't have any restrictions on their liability. Private security firms have incentive to prevent crime and create safer environments where they patrol. Private security firms can't arbitrate disputes against them to their own benefit. Private security, for whatever faults it may end up having, is more humane and more accountable by default than the current policing paradigm that exists.