Frustrated, Detroit Residents Compete with Police

Experiencing the failure of centralized planning on a massive scale (in this case for the area of police “protection”) Detroit residents are arming themselves, getting guard dogs, forming neighborhood watches and hiring others to help protect their home or person to proactively mitigate crime. Good for them.

As reported by on February 5th:

One high-ranking official in the county legal system, speaking to The Daily, said the rise in justifiable homicides mirrors a local court system that’s increasingly lenient of the practice.

“It’s a lot more acceptable now to get your own retribution,” the official said. “And the justice system in the city is a lot more understanding if people do that. It‘s becoming a part of the culture.”

That’s not a stretch. The same write-up included this passage from a Detroit police department employee:

‘It’s not about police response time because often the act has already taken place by the time the police are called,’ said Sgt. Eren Stephens. She said citizens have a right to defend themselves.

Should we be surprised? Not at all. If anything we should be surprised that people have put up with the current racket for so long.

Do you want government providing your food? To handle the growing, harvesting, processing, distribution and sale (or rationing)? Of course not – you know they’d do a poor job. So why trust people working for a claimed monopoly, who are subjected to the same perverse incentives, to supply “protection”?

How hypocritical it is for supporters of policing today (who think competition is untenable), to claim the need for police to protect people and property when the police themselves exist solely on the wealth others have created. The very foundation is based on violence. Every police salary paid or round of ammunition purchased was bought with stolen money.  This circular logic says it’s ok for someone with a badge to steal from someone to “protect” them. Why does an action – theft – become ok when the thief dons a particular attire?

It doesn’t. Fortunately that bad idea – that certain should be granted extra authority based on their place of employment, is eroding.

What’s becoming more commonplace in Detroit is just a harbinger of things to come elsewhere. Governments will implode under their own bloat. More people will withdraw their consent if not for moral qualms, because they find it in interest to become more self-sufficient or reach a consensual interaction with someone who has that comparative advantage to provide a certain good/service.

In his 1849 essay The Production of Security, Gustave de Molinari proposed much the same. From a reviewer:

His singular contribution, then, was to lead us away from the false assumption of Hobbes that somehow the state was necessary to keep society from devolving into chaos. On the contrary, argued Molinari, the voluntary society is the source of order that comes from freedom itself. There is no contradiction or even tension between liberty and security. If free enterprise works well in one sector, it can work well in other sectors too.

Shouldn’t you have the choice how your money is spent? Wouldn’t you expect greater transparency and bang-for-your-buck if you yourself hired them and had the option to fire them? That’s what society could look like without a system sheltered from competition.

For more on this check out the two videos below or read

Thanks to my bud Greg Wamble for putting this story on my radar.


Pete Eyre

Pete Eyre is co-founder of As an advocate of peaceful, consensual interactions, he seeks to inject a message of complete liberty and self-government into the conversation of police accountability.

Eyre went to undergrad and grad school for law enforcement, then spent time in DC as an intern at the Cato Institute, a Koch Fellow at the Drug Policy Alliance, Directer of Campus Outreach at the Institute for Humane Studies, Crasher-in-Chief at Bureaucrash, and as a contractor for the Future of Freedom Foundation.

In 2009 he left the belly of the beast and hit the road with Motorhome Diaries and later co-founded Liberty On Tour. He spent time in New Hampshire home, and was involved with Free Keene, the Free State Project and The Daily Decrypt.

  • ..And Blackwater was an excellent cost savings to the US Military.

    I guess I wonder how ‘private’ police force would work? Could it work? So the residents pay? Okay, Manhattan residents pay $500/month, while Bronx residents pay $1500/mo – why? More crime, more calls for the police. What’s to stop a community from raising the price of their private security force so high, the ‘common folk’ can’t afford it? Then what? They move or don’t get police services. Like that Fire Dept in TN I think it way, where the homewoner didn’t pay, but really wanted to pay once his house was on fire. And then the Fire Dept didn’t put it out because he didn’t pay. Or how about you call 911, but a check of the balance book shows a negative balance, “Sorry Mr Smith, we won’t be sending the police as you still have a past due amount, so good luck with finding out who broke in and took your possessions.” How about paying for police, at a rate of $8.00/hr. You will get the night manager from McDonalds now carrying a gun, making decisions? Hey, it saves money right, well, until the lawsuit. Who pays for that? The residents? Do they do as business would and push the cost to their members? What if private police forces decided to include an indemnity waiver so you can’t sue, but you get a discount. Much like the USSC decision that the police have no obligation to protect a person, only the ‘publilc’ – how would that translate to a private police force? I wonder would the community have to sign a ‘contact’ with the police force? What about someone who does not live there but just travels through there and his involved in a fatal accident. Who pays for the investigation and prosecution? And what about crime labs, they aren’t free. Who pays for that? You want to know who raped your daugther, but is it a pay as you go? That bill to find that DNA? “Mr Smith, its $12,000, so if you want it done, just write the check.” AZ state lab cost about 10 million. I’m sure larger businesses would happily pay for police services, such as banks naturally, as would wealthy communities, but what about the poorer neighborhoods? How would they get police services? What if they couldn’t pay but say had a family member killed. Are they just out of luck? I know he’s commented on this before but is more of ‘stealing money’ aspect. I don’t know of any police department that has overtly said you ‘cannot defend your home’ but there are legal issues, such as defending property (you awaken to see someone in the driveway stealing your car). I guess what I am saying, its very easy to say to privatize it, but explain how it works in ‘real life.’

  • Rockgod

    Common sense, It is known as free market competition. if we mover from government funded law enforcement, to competing private security agencies, they would be forced to: A)provide worthy training credentials to prove that they can and will provide a reliable service. B)contract fair pricing. If a consumer or consumers are not satisfied with one agency, then they contract with another or create their own, meanwhile, the agency of which is no longer contracted with, due to poor service, will financially suffer unless they increase their standards of service! And if the consumer and agency alike are wise, the contract will be negotiable till all parties agree to certain terms and conditions. To do otherwise, would not be in the best interest of either party!

  • Pingback: Frustrated, Detroit Residents Compete with Police - Death Rattle Sports | Death Rattle Sports()

  • Common Sense

    I certainly understand the free market approach, but I’d dare say the free market isn’t really ‘free’ but that’s another topic. I am of the viewpoint that everyone wants contractors to be cheaper? Plumber, painters etc. But a profit must be made correct? Police, supervisers, dispatchers, record clerks, animal control etc will all want a paycheck, and then of course, there is benefits, equipment, vehicles, and even some type of liablity insurance. I would expect those, for sake of argument, making over $250,000.00 can afford “better” protection that someone making $25,000.00 Certainly, in the free market, you cannot stand in the way of a profit such as better wages and benefits etc for your private police force, thus attracting better candidates. I wonder if it will be a Halliburton-esq monopoly – just think of Goldman Sachs tossing in a few billion to form their own private police force. Can those with the most money simply have better? But then you want those same private citizens to apply USSC decisions in the application of statutes/laws? If I can afford the best as it were, I can convince my community to enact standards that state you can’t have cars older then 1990 in my well-do community can I not? After all, its a majority vote and my private police force does my bidding by contract. How about pitbulls? I don’t like them, so I ban them from my gated community. Is that fair? And won’t those private cops have a favortism towards whom they serve? What about travelers through their community? No contract with them so they are fair game. Does not the mere instigation of a ‘private’ police force at the start, begin to curtail liberty and freedom? Of course, you will have communities with the grass growers and the bunker builders, but what about the other 305 billion people in the US? The ones who say that marijuana is still illegal and will never sway their voting opinion and inturn, ensure their ‘private police’ enforce those drug laws?

  • Rockgod

    Common Sense, You are taking this to extremes, these private security agencies being discussed are to enforce security measures, not enforce victimless crimes such your neighbor shooting heroin or owning an automobile which was built during 1930. The general idea, is that I start a security agency, you have a lush garden but looters keep taking your vegetables, so you come to me and you, “hey, Rockgod, I have this issue with a few looters, who keep taking my veggies without my permission, can we draw up a contract to secure and protect my garden?” You and I come to a certain terms and conditions, sign a contract and I provide security personnel to prevent the theft of anymore of your veggies! Nothing more, nothing less.

    Indeed profits must be made, and if you compete with your competitors you will make a profit, however with competition, you cannot make more of a profit than your competitors save for when your competitors do not compete, or, you follow suit of today’s corporations and draw up legislation to thwart competition and the you begin using you personnel to enforce this legislation, however, the later scenario is unlikely A)in a free and voluntaryist society and B)with other security agencies competing against yours. Contracts would be drawn up to thwart you legislation!

    As for liability insurance, that too, is to be determined with said contract!

  • I certainly think the ‘extremes’ need to be brought up as the do occur and will occur. I also think there is a HUGE difference between a private ‘security force’ and a ‘police force’ If you want your community patroled by mall cops with the fancy orange light on their SUV, that’s up to you but I don’t think they deter any crime.

    The bases for the ‘private police’ force argument is to have the police stop arresting people growing or selling drugs. I certainly think in my lifetime, marijuana will be legalized, its already ‘semi-legal’ is 16 states. I don’t however agree that drugs are a ‘victimless’ crime, watch a few episodes of ‘Intervention’ and I clearly see that drugs and drug abuse affects more then just the user.

    And the social experiment of legalizing drugs just to see if people kill people less will never happen. Its the same argument with guns. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” which is correct, guns just make it way easlier. If someone is going to break in and steal your drugs, they will whether they are legal or not. Its much easlier to just steal them from you then get a job.

    The issues arise from the nature of police work in general and the ‘free market’ aspects. Using issues of robbery or buglary, a private police force is counter productive. Lets your private force can’t cut the mustard, who do you get then? What if they are the only game in town. What if that private police force see those who ‘pay’ and those who ‘don’t pay’ differently, are they to be treated differntly? My example of someone calling 911 and not getting a public service is real, it happened. If you have no issue with a fire department watching your home burn to the ground because you needed to pay your grow light bill, then that’s the burden you will bare.

    Then, the next level, your home is broken into or your involved in a hit and run, but look out, you didn’t pay your bill. Your own your own, good luck. Is that the way you want it be? Who hasn’t ‘missed’ a payment on something once in their life? How many are behind on college loan payments? And what about the prosecution of a suspect, courts are cheap. My payments are up to date so I get a trial, but if I am behind, I get nothing? Who pays for the judges?And what about the cost of housing an inmate? I have read that with private jails, the saving are less then 10% vs a public jail system. What if the private police force says, “You know, I know times are hard, and you want to be protected, so I’ll just have you take a lein on your car, just put our Co. name on it, or maybe your house and we’ll say your covered for the year.” You don’t see any chance for abuse? “Sorry, rates are going up, time to get that check book out.” Just think if like car insurane, what if they say you need to pay more for more ‘advanced’ police services such as actually running after a thief, and since you have just the back plan, it only covers property crime, so, sorry about that cut on your head. “No we don’t deal with animal control issues, you’ll have to call someone else.” Or how about, “No we don’t deal with your crazy mentally disturbed aunt who tearing the shit out of your basement, its not in our contract, call someone else.” I can’t help but draw a comparison between paying the mob for protection for your garden example. “Pay up or something might just happen to your carrots.” The main issue is that its fine to say some sweeping change such as going ‘private’ but without actually looking at what will really happen, that just ignorant.

  • t.

    I kinda like the idea. Detroit is a toilet. Everything is wrong. Certainly there is corruption in the government. But guess what everyone. Who do you think they are protecting themselves against? It isn’t Mr. And Mrs. America. It the criminals and drug users that are run amok. Like Whitney Houston said, Crack is wack. The cops, even the good ones, can’t do it all by themselves. There are way to many folks like many that frequent this site that just refuse to except any form of law. Good luck the citizens in Detroit.

  • Rockgod

    Common Sense, you need to stop think in the context of what things are today and expand your, start think of what things could be. Security, is just that, you, taking steps to secure your persons, papers and effects, whether you do this by purchasing alarm systems, weapons and take combat lessons, or you contract with another who is in this profession to provide security for you.

    In a free market economy, price hikes are highly unlikely, as is lack of competing security agencies.

    And, should you fail to draw up a contract, or you cannot afford such services, then you’d better be willing to go to bat yourself. But, people would be far more prosperous in a free market economy! This is not to say circumstances would be perfect, but, they’d be far better than they are.

  • I think a ‘free-market’ approach to police work wouold naturally lead to two outcomes.

    One would be a ‘mall-cop’ organization much akin to say the police force in Turkey. Low wages will lead to low moral, next will be theft and abuse(s).

    The second outcome would probably be worse, an eventual monopoly where several states are ‘patrolled’ by a single corporation. In the end, you would be policed by the private, corporate 1% who will decide what’s enforced and what’s not. It will be the major banks who back the private police forces, it will be the Lehman Bros who insure them and even Blackwater who train them…

  • rockgod

    Common Sense, wages would increase on the free market, not decrease. As for monopoly, monopoly is created by getting rid of competition, ones get rid of competition via regulating the market, rendering the market a regulated market instead of a free market. Again with competition, agency are FORCED to act responsibly or nobody will draw up a contract. Obviously, none of this makes sense to you though, so I will cease comment! View the link below to gain an understanding of how the free market works. Just for the record, Standard Oil became a monopoly via purchasing legislation to thwart competitors, i.e. the prohibition of alcohol during the 1920s-30s

    The Truth About The Robber Barons

  • How are wages to increase? Who will be paying for them? Those who’ve contacted with the police?

    I thought it was an attempt to lower the outlay of money from the common man? Since paying a fraction of your tax dollars to the public police is ‘robbery’ and too costly, you say that by contacting with a private vender will lower your personal expenses? AND at the same time, increase the wages for the private police themselves? How does that happen?

    Additionally, I agree, any market must have regulations, there can not be a ‘free’ market.

  • certain

    Common Sense,

    I know nobody can come up with a plan that you won’t tear apart as being flawed, but ANY system probably looks more appealing than the one we have now. A system in which a gang of THUGS can pull a peson in drastic need of emergency care out of their car, hit and kick them repeatedly, and suffer no consequence at all. Justify that. The guy was in diabetic shock, and rater than get protected and served by the PD, he was assaulted and placed in even more danger. “He wouldn’t place his hands behind his back!” Because he was in a diabetic coma, and was medically unable to respond. And if your criminals-in-blue compatriots would have taken just enough time to understand what was going on, instead of being in such a hurry to start beating somebody, he probably would have gotten the assistance he needed, instead of an illegal assault. So go ahead, T, Common Sense, Lurker, any of you who like to defend this POS system, tell me why these guys aren’t being charged with assault? Their department will swear they did nothing but follow policy right up to the point that their city pays out a chunk of cash to the victim. Freaking makes me sick.

  • Gil

    How about no private police and instead private home owner simply shoot dead intruders? Cheap and efficient.

  • Pingback: More Articles for Friday » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog()

  • Common Sense

    I am certainly not defending anyone yet. From what I have read, the person who was ‘assaulted’ by the NV police, accepted a settlement of $300,000.

    Why they are/aren’t being charged/terminated is up to their DA and their department. From the video I saw, he was offering no resistance and the use(s) of force maybe have been justified by one or two of the cops there, but the ‘kicker’ was excessive.

  • Rockgod I think you are not quite incorrect in your thinking, however there are some things that you are leaving out. First if I am the person that directly hires, pays and fires the private police forces then I become the direct influence on that force. I could say enforce DUI in my community but if you catch me let me go or you are fired. That is bad that is why the police should not be profit driven and should be paid and directed by indirect means. That means a representative (picked by the majority vote or voluntary decision)or group of them decide what is law and what is not. Those decisions are then enforced by trained officers and those officers act with objectivity for the whole of society not for an individual.

    If you put the profit mode into the mix instead of a non-profit driven organization you will get CEO’s that pay minimum wages to a high school drop out in order to make the profit margin better for the company.

    If you or a consortium pay a private police force who is responsible for getting the officer healthy or reparing the life and liberty of a citizen that has his or her rights violated because the officer was enforcing the “laws” that you or the consortium establish. How would the laws of your “police” force be uniform for the same town but different neighborhoods?

    Lastly I live in TN and here we have the castle doctrine meaning if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them dead that is acceptable. There should not be a single police officer (im not saying there arent) that would arrest a man or woman for defending themselves from a criminal.

    Its like the old joke where a man asks his friend why he carrys a gun. And the friend replies “because a cop is to heavy to carry around all the time”.

    Do I think that your theory would work? On paper maybe in the same way that socialism looks on paper (devoid of any human emotions, desires, and selfishness) and yet it is a disaster when there is an attempt to put it into practice

    Just a thought Rockgod if you did get your way and have your own police force would the name of this blog change to

  • Freedom

    “Commonsense”. Invincible ignorance is NOT a valid debate tactic.
    I find it odd, and somewhat hilarious, that someone who knows NOTHING about a subject will come running into a debate and will ask dozens of questions and then act as if they have scored a point when the person they are questioning cannot answer it.

    How about, you learn how to read, learn how to look for information, and figure out the answers to your questions on your own?

    There are hundreds of examples of non-regulated or barely regulated systems working perfectly. So, go look them up.

    Just because you lack the imagination or the intellectual framework to have a serious conversation on free market economics does not mean that free market economics is an automatic failure.

    The failure is in your lack of education and intelligence, not in the free market.

    Your slippery slop, straw man, red herring, and invincible ignorance arguments ARE NOT intelligent intellectual arguments. You just look like a two year old monkey flinging poo.

    I have a question that is actually pertinent to a real debate:

    In light of the massive failure of government funded policing forces to keep the peace without becoming huge money pits and criminalizing huge swaths of the citizenry while creating an untouchable class of career government criminals, what do you propose as an alternative?

    If free market justice or law enforcement does not work, what is your alternative, throw more money to the currently failing government system?

  • Common Sense

    I think every topic or comment raises questions. Given the idea or theory that a “free market police force” is nothing but a suggestion, since no one has really “worked out” what would happen in the real world.

  • Get rid of the cops, and by default, you get rid of the illegal narcotics importing and distribution network. Because we all know that the police are the real drug dealers. Once the drug infrastructure is gone, the crime rate will fall.

    Or, we could go one better and implement the Portugal Solution. Legalize possession of narcotics at a limited level, and crime literally evaporates overnight. Icing on the case is cops getting laid off, prisons closing, peace in our community, and a workable culture is restored.

    But…without crime, cops don’t get overtime, and cops lose union power, and cops can no longer seize your car and house because you had a quarter ounce bag. Or hell, the cops will just PLANT the dope on you and steal your stuff anyway.

    We can have peace and prosperity, or we can have organized police forces, but not both.

    Our goals should be 1.) raise community awareness of the rampant crimes being commited by law enforcement all across our nation, 2.) strip police of their protection from civil litigation. Once cops figure out that their screw-ups will no longer be paid for out of the public coffers, but out of their OWN POCKETS…we will see an dramatic change in their behavior.

    Cop Block is taking care of goal #1, so lets support them.

  • t.

    @citizen officer: Pretty well stated. There are several things that are missed in this discussion. First is, to all on you anti-law Cop Blockers that support the idea of private law enforcement. That still means enforcing the law. You all don’t like the law so, ah, duh. Second is the fact the this is the ultimate haves versus the have nots. The 1% (what a crock of crap that is but anyway) will hire the best and most “cops”. The 99% will then be left with nothing. But even if you can somehow lay that issue aside, and the 99 can actually afford to hire someone, what happens when your private force comes into conflict with my private force? You claim I did something, and In claim you did it, and we then send our respective forces out to arrest each other, who mediates that?

    C.O. has it right, this looks better on paper than it does for real.

    FREEDOM: Apparently some things don’t work well in the open market. Hell, just ask the folks that were in the news last years because they wouldn’t pay $50 a year for fire protection and then bitched when the fire department sat down the road when their house went up. I guess saving 50 bucks and trying a garden hose didn’t work so well. That’ sthe flaw in your argument. Fire equipment costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. And so does the training. Small competing groups can’t afford that. It’s the same with police work. With small private groups, who do you call, and how? Your plan would eliminate 911 (can’t just keep that and get rid of the rest). Maybe YOU should sit down, read and research and think it through a little more.

    GLENN: If you want to live in Portugal, move there. I don’t want legalized narcotics here. I don’t want to have my kids exposed to that. I don’t want to be victimized by the users or narcotics. You might, I don’t. Bet the majority is on my side.

  • Common Sense

    @Glenn, police do lose their ‘protections’ in civil litigation, that’s called ‘punitive’ damages, they come directly from the defendant (i.e. the cop). Compensatory come from the police department/city etc. Typically plaintiffs don’t sue the police officers, but sue ‘everyone’ since the cops don’t have any money (not the millions that are handed down in settlements or decisions).

    I find it odd that people think that the simple act of legalization will end crime. Even in the Netherlands, stronger drugs like heroin and cocaine are still illegal. I wonder what the socialized cost of medicine costs in the Netherlands.

  • t.

    @uncommonly sensable: look into to it, the Netherlands are cracking down on all of the drug use. “coffee shops” are being closed because of the problems associated with the open, widespread drug use.

  • Common Sense

    Years ago, I actually talked to someone from the Netherlands, they said their major crime issues were from of all things America motorcycle gangs…


    1. rise in justifiable homicides has been on the rise in Michigan for the last 7 years since they passed the new CCW law where anyone who isn’t a felon of head case can get one.

    Detroit….is a shit hole, and is only getting worse. It was the ideal liberal city of hope 40 years ago and the policies and ideals of the left have run that city into the ground. People arming themselves has nothing to do with the “centralized planning of the city”. Has to do with the simple fact that once again detroit is seeing a 200 million dollar budget shortfall and will cut police/fire everything….once again. People needing to protect themselves simply because the bad guys are running lose and they simply don’t have the cops to go out and find them. Calls for service hold for hours in detroit. Call about a loud party in Saturday night???……you end of seeing a cop by midmorning sunday.

  • What’s to become of the present Midway Station? Is there any thought at all Amtrak serice in or anywhere near Downtown Minneapolis? I’m also curious about this Minneapolis interchange mentioned in the Red Rock Cooridor video since I’d never heard of it before.

  • OH my God! This nutjob article and the nutjob commenters are actually advocating a private Police!
    How is the Private Prison system working for you?
    How about the Private War system?
    Private Fire?
    Private Police?
    Cause it’s good for business!
    “Hey, Louie, have you noticed how much crime der is in your neighborhood? I see you haven’t paid your private police bill dis month. You know, if you aren’t paid up, we won’t be able to protect youse should something happen to you or dos little kiddies of yours. I can feel it in my bones dat something bad may be about to happen in your neighborhood, Louie. If I was youse, I would pay my police bill today. For a small gratuity I can see that your family is put at da top of da list?”

  • jesusknight

    I would think if this is not done right, the mafia/gangster mentality will rear its ugly head and take over, and we will be where we were in the 20’s with big ‘bosses’ in charge of neighborhoods, and the ppl would have to ‘pay for protection’… this smells of something fishy they WANT to happen.. beware is all i have to say!

  • Jon Snow

    We have a monopoly providing security services right now, “Common Sense.” Both quality, and cost, are abysmal, and you can’t do anything about it. If you don’t want to pay for them, you’ll go to jail – so they take your money, using force and violence. Some people do get better protection – government employees, bureaucrats, Hollywood elites, etc. Try entering a building where government staff work, and assaulting someone. Other people get no protection – your children, while in school, for instance. The protectors regularly assault and murder innocent human beings. They also steal. Should you object to any of this, guess what – your case will be decided by people employed by the same agency you’re objecting to. And bonus – all this is quickly evolving into a military police state.

    That’s the result of granting a small, elite group of people their violence monopoly. Surprise: “security” forces that believe themselves entitled to commit violence. Monopolies are such a great idea, “Common Sense.”

    And here we have Dale Brown, who says love is the answer. He says you have to think more about other peoples’ safety than about your own. The goal of his organization: “to properly manage human threats to create the most non-violent outcome possible.”

    Have you ever heard a violence monopolist talk that way? No, you haven’t, because the violence monopoly is built upon violence. It loves violence. It needs violence. It hires violent people. It takes its funding using violence.

    Cronies of the violence monopoly are just that. Expect the same from them. In fact, expect a great deal of unnecessary violence in any society that is founded upon the very use of violence, as is ours. Government cannot exist without violence. It must use violence, to take your money from you. Try objecting. You’ll be taken away from your family, and thrown in jail. If you make any sudden moves, you’re likely to be shot. Guess what – the cop will walk scott free.

  • Jon Snow

    Angel Scott, all the “businesses” you mention are government-sponsored cronies. There is nothing private about a government crony. The crony doesn’t need customers – it doesn’t care about service – the government will always feed it, by using force and violence, to take from us. There’s nothing private about that. Government wages wars to feed its defense contractors. Government outlaws plants to feed its prison contractors. Government even creates enemies, to commit violent acts, to justify cracking down on us! Government is a monopoly – it outlaws competition. You’re arguing in favor of granting a small elite group of people a total monopoly over the most critical services we need – and you call people crazy who would like to see some competition introduced. The government doesn’t have customers – it is parasitic by nature. The government doesn’t produce anything on its own, it must perform an immoral act – theft – before it does anything, even so that it can simply exist. It steals, even murders, with no accountability whatsoever. That includes ALL of its cronies, who are government-protected entities. It even controls the information you’re fed, and it has done so for a century, managing to convince generations of people that there can be no other way but to have this small elite group of parasites taking as much as they want from us. Some folks are so indoctrinated they’ll go to their grave defending government, even should their grave be brought about by the government they’re defending. It’s lunacy. Market competition is the only way.

  • pranavb99 .

    Check your facts. A *public* fire department declined to put out the fire because the guy refused to pay for fire protection.
    Legalized narcotics reduce use because treatment can be given without fear of prosecution. And isn’t reduced use the outcome we want?