Should we elect Police Officers?

[Gumba of Liberty]

Day after day we see blatant misuse of government power by police officers. The fundamental reason for this is because police officers are hired to follow orders. They are hired by a bureaucracy and show allegiance to the State, not the public. They understand why they have their job and they want to keep their job. Therefore the problem is systemic, it cannot be fixed by better oversight, it must be fixed by drastic changes in the system. I see only one way to make police officers accountable and that way is through yearly elections and a streamline impeachment process. The only way to fix this problem is to let the Community decide who shall protect it. With a local community voting for local police, it becomes a real world advantage to being a registered voter. A valid voter registration card could be the difference between a ticket and a warning. The police would understand that they have to actually help people and defend the public good in order to keep their job. The police will finally see the average citizen as a sovereign individual rather than a mere mundane. Any thoughts?

[specsaregood]

You do, it is called the County Sheriff.

edit:
http://www.sheriffmack.com/index.php/books-by-richard-mack
Worth a read:
http://www.sheriffmack.com/images/stories/books/The%20County%20Sheriff-160.jpg


America's Last Hope

Sheriff Mack's latest book covers decades of research to prove once and for all that the sheriffs in this country are indeed the ultimate law authority in their respective jurisdictions. The sheriff absolutely has the power and responsiblity to defend his citizens against all enemies, including those from our own Federal Government. History, case law, common law and common sense all show clear evidence that the sheriff is the people's protector in all issues of injustice and is responsible for keeping the peace in all matters. He is the last line of defense for his constituents; he is America's last hope to regain our forgotten freedom. This short but powerful book is a must read for all citizens, sheriffs, and government officials that we may all work to return America to the constitutional republic she was meant to be. Amazing as it might be, the sheriff can make this happen!

[Gumba of Liberty]

You do, it is called the County Sheriff.

I am suggesting electing all police officers not just one. Electing only one allows those with the funds to buy the Sheriff to run the police department.

[Golding]

No. We should fire police officers.

[Johncjackson]

no. We should fire police officers.

this

[Lothario]

No. We should fire police officers.

qft.

no man or group of men should have a monopoly on force - what happens psychologically when people are defined as policemen or guards? watch the trailer below...just a movie, and not a good one at that, but the implications are scary as crap.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlUkzfITiSs

[Johncjackson]

You do, it is called the County Sheriff.

edit:
http://www.sheriffmack.com/index.php/books-by-richard-mack
Worth a read:
http://www.sheriffmack.com/images/stories/books/The%20County%20Sheriff-160.jpg

So this shows exactly why it's a BAD idea. So guys like Joe Arpaio and The Pima guy ( can't think of his name right now) are the ultimate protectors of liberty? Scary that anyone would place any face in criminals like them to do anything other than fight against their own citizens and the state in the rare instances the state attempts to reign them in.

[Kotin]

qft.

no man or group of men should have a monopoly on force - what happens psychologically when people are defined as policemen or guards? watch the trailer below...just a movie, and not a good one at that, but the implications are scary as crap.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlUkzfITiSs

The question of who will watch the watchers has yet to be answered..

[lynnf]

Day after day we see blatant misuse of government power by police officers. The fundamental reason for this is because police officers are hired to follow orders. They are hired by a bureaucracy and show allegiance to the State, not the public. They understand why they have their job and they want to keep their job. Therefore the problem is systemic, it cannot be fixed by better oversight, it must be fixed by drastic changes in the system. I see only one way to make police officers accountable and that way is through yearly elections and a streamline impeachment process. The only way to fix this problem is to let the Community decide who shall protect it. With a local community voting for local police, it becomes a real world advantage to being a registered voter. A valid voter registration card could be the difference between a ticket and a warning. The police would understand that they have to actually help people and defend the public good in order to keep their job. The police will finally see the average citizen as a sovereign individual rather than a mere mundane. Any thoughts?

definitely not! what makes you'll get any better ones than the current method? look at Congress and our other elected offices -- lots of them are crooks -- so we would probably end up worse off.

[Working Poor]

Aren't police officers in a Union?

[aGameOfThrones]

The question of who will watch the watchers has yet to be answered..

A civilian commission with absolutely no power to do anything.

[heavenlyboy34]

No. We should fire police officers.
this^^ :cool:

[libertybrewcity]

we should not elect them. we should disarm them though: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north198.html

[mport1]

Should we elect Police Officers?

Better yet, let's privatize them. That is the only way they will ever be accountable for their actions.

[AFPVet]

Better yet, let's privatize them. That is the only way they will ever be accountable for their actions.

The only issue with this is that they would have to be sworn. I suppose they could go to the Clerk like everyone else and get sworn in/issued ID and then have the company pay for the processing, training and gear.

[pcosmar]

Better yet, let's privatize them. That is the only way they will ever be accountable for their actions.

Nope,privatized police have been as abusive as "state" police.
We need to disband them. The very concept of police is repugnant.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

People need to take responsibility for their own security and Law Enforcement.

[Vessol]

How about this.

Let me choose in a free market who I wish to provide defense to my property and self.

Don't impose a monopoly upon the service of protection, especially with the use of force.

How does that make any logical sense? I have to be robbed at gunpoint by the police force in order for them to "protect" me from those(non-police officers) who would rob me at gunpoint.

[osan]

We should fire them. Every last one.

[mport1]

Nope,privatized police have been as abusive as "state" police.
We need to disband them. The very concept of police is repugnant.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

People need to take responsibility for their own security and Law Enforcement.

Sounds good to me. When I say private police though I'm assuming the state itself is dismantled as well. As we have seen when government still has overall authority there are problems (e.g. Blackwater).

[osan]

You do, it is called the County Sheriff.

edit:
http://www.sheriffmack.com/index.php/books-by-richard-mack
Worth a read:
http://www.sheriffmack.com/images/stories/books/The%20County%20Sheriff-160.jpg

Agreed in principle. However, without an adept and honest prosecutor, the sheriff is essentially ball-less.

Summers county WV is a great example of this. Three years ago the county elected Ed Dolphin, a retired NJ cop to the office. Ed is a good guy and has worked hard to pursue legitimate crime issues in the county. Amy Mann, the county prosecutor, has been fairly consistently refusing to bring charges. Needless to say, Ed is a bit frustrated.

[pcosmar]

Agreed in principle. However, without an adept and honest prosecutor, the sheriff is essentially ball-less.

Summers county WV is a great example of this. Three years ago the county elected Ed Dolphin, a retired NJ cop to the office. Ed is a good guy and has worked hard to pursue legitimate crime issues in the county. Amy Mann, the county prosecutor, has been fairly consistently refusing to bring charges. Needless to say, Ed is a bit frustrated.
Get rid of the prosecutors too. Revamp the entire system. Go back to how it was done.
Private prosecution and Grand Juries.

[PineGroveDave]

Why can't we just shoot them? They shoot us, don't they?

[pcosmar]

Sounds good to me. When I say private police though I'm assuming the state itself is dismantled as well. As we have seen when government still has overall authority there are problems (e.g. Blackwater).

I have no problem with private security services, Hire one to defend your home or business.
But they have NO Business "policing" a free society, nor arresting anyone.

The Pinkerton agency is a good example of a bad example. They were hired private police that fire bombed people out of their homes.

[heavenlyboy34]

Day after day we see blatant misuse of government power by police officers. The fundamental reason for this is because police officers are hired to follow orders. They are hired by a bureaucracy and show allegiance to the State, not the public. They understand why they have their job and they want to keep their job. Therefore the problem is systemic, it cannot be fixed by better oversight, it must be fixed by drastic changes in the system. I see only one way to make police officers accountable and that way is through yearly elections and a streamline impeachment process. The only way to fix this problem is to let the Community decide who shall protect it. With a local community voting for local police, it becomes a real world advantage to being a registered voter. A valid voter registration card could be the difference between a ticket and a warning. The police would understand that they have to actually help people and defend the public good in order to keep their job. The police will finally see the average citizen as a sovereign individual rather than a mere mundane. Any thoughts?

No. Government police should be abolished. We can "elect" our security forces by "voting" with money. :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

I have no problem with private security services, Hire one to defend your home or business.
But they have NO Business "policing" a free society, nor arresting anyone.

The Pinkerton agency is a good example of a bad example. They were hired private police that fire bombed people out of their homes.
Indeed. There is a big difference between "security" and "law enforcement". The latter is tyranny and brute force.

[mport1]

I have no problem with private security services, Hire one to defend your home or business.
But they have NO Business "policing" a free society, nor arresting anyone.

The Pinkerton agency is a good example of a bad example. They were hired private police that fire bombed people out of their homes.

Yep, I'm in agreement there. All "public" property should be abolished and then protection agencies would just defend the people and places they have been contracted to protect.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yep, I'm in agreement there. All "public" property should be abolished and then protection agencies would just defend the people and places they have been contracted to protect.
+a zillion :cool:

[AFPVet]

Nope,privatized police have been as abusive as "state" police.
We need to disband them. The very concept of police is repugnant.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

People need to take responsibility for their own security and Law Enforcement.

This is true... look at Blackwater! Still though, if someone wants to pay for private security, it should be up to them. In some cases, private companies can be worse! I certainly don't see anything wrong with a neighborhood instituted security force either. Remember, police officers simply have an extended citizens arrest power... the interesting thing is that we have been accustomed to having the state do the policing for so long that we forgot about the right of citizens to arrest for crimes. Now, citizens arrest is only used for felonies and breech of peace as witnessed by the citizen. Police officers should have no more power than citizens arrest.

[cindy25]

taking away their immunity would solve most problems; and make them PERSONALLY responsible; they kill a dog, let a jury decide. in most cases they would lose their house.

[AJ Antimony]

Thread topic is moot because it ignores the reason WHY cops cause so many problems: There are too many laws.

Of all the cop-horror stories you've read, how many were drug related? Most of them?

The first step isn't to decide how cops are hired. The first step is giving the police fewer laws to enforce.

[Sola_Fide]

You do, it is called the County Sheriff.

edit:
http://www.sheriffmack.com/index.php/books-by-richard-mack
Worth a read:
http://www.sheriffmack.com/images/stories/books/The%20County%20Sheriff-160.jpg



Interesting. Thanks.

[guitarlifter]

qft.

no man or group of men should have a monopoly on force - what happens psychologically when people are defined as policemen or guards? watch the trailer below...just a movie, and not a good one at that, but the implications are scary as crap.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlUkzfITiSs

I have this movie, and it's based off a true story involving an experiment like the one depicted in this movie. And I don't think that the government should have a police force. I'd rather have a privatized one, but I do have one question though that I am confused on. How would a privatized police force have the right (or whatever) to arrest others and enforce the law?

[Vessol]

I have this movie, and it's based off a true story involving an experiment like the one depicted in this movie. And I don't think that the government should have a police force. I'd rather have a privatized one, but I do have one question though that I am confused on. How would a privatized police force have the right (or whatever) to arrest others and enforce the law?

Arresting people and putting them in cages is a rather new invention of the past few centuries. Prisons in the past were mainly for political enemies. However, it was during the 19th century in Britain that prisons were used for imprisoning mass amounts of people. Progressives at the time loved them because they believed that prisons would be able to discourage crime and change the ways of those who were within their walls.

In the past, most crimes were dealt with restitution being paid to the victims directly.

Medieval Iceland and Ireland were both anarchistic societies that had quite elaborate and effective court systems.

http://mises.org/daily/1121

[iGGz]

qft.

no man or group of men should have a monopoly on force - what happens psychologically when people are defined as policemen or guards? watch the trailer below...just a movie, and not a good one at that, but the implications are scary as crap.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlUkzfITiSs

You should watch the original one instead. It's called Das Experiment and is 100x better

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250258/

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[SimpleName]

Electing them will solve nothing. See: Congress. And disarming them is to me an insane proposition. Why even have them at that point? Privatize? Sure, if you want giant too-big-to-fail corporations with an undying goal on profiting by arresting folks. And disbanding, worst idea. How do we protect ourselves against gangs and mobs? Am I supposed to fight them all off? The police afford me the ability to at least try to escape or hide temporarily. No police = certain death. Sure you could say I could hire my own security, but am I really supposed to afford $200,000 a year for multiple on-duty security guards? Really? I suggest simply putting greater restrictions on power and increased punishment for abuses. You murder somebody without cause, you get twice as much time as an average citizen. I know the anarchists will go nuts, but I never want to live in a society without some form of law enforcement.

[fisharmor]

And disarming them is to me an insane proposition. Why even have them at that point?
You ask the right question but arrive at the wrong answer.


Privatize? Sure, if you want giant too-big-to-fail corporations with an undying goal on profiting by arresting folks.I agree. So do all the other anarchists. Stop mischaracterizing us already - in this, and every other part of the state that we likewise don't want "privatized".


And disbanding, worst idea. How do we protect ourselves against gangs and mobs? Am I supposed to fight them all off? The police afford me the ability to at least try to escape or hide temporarily.Here comes the clue bus... The police IS the gang and mob. Now what?


No police = certain death.History up to about 1840 disagrees with you. Not some of it. All of it. All recorded history. And particular pockets of history after 1840 also disagree with you.


Sure you could say I could hire my own security, but am I really supposed to afford $200,000 a year for multiple on-duty security guards? Really?

So, how many cops follow you around every day? Where do you live that you get such treatment? Where I live (on Earth), it is in one's interest NOT to have cops following your around, because that means they're fishing.


I suggest simply putting greater restrictions on power and increased punishment for abuses.Restrictions to be upheld by whom, pray tell?


I know the anarchists will go nuts, but I never want to live in a society without some form of law enforcement. No, we will calmly and patiently explain, again, that you are misinformed and haven't reasoned through the argument to its bitter end.
The bitter end is that you've been lied to your entire life.
Stop taking it out on us, and stop spreading the lies here.

[heavenlyboy34]

That's an excellent post^^ I would add that police are not "protection". They are thugs in costume, with no legal obligation to uphold the law if they don't want to.

[Sam I am]

That's looks more like what happens when your police or guards are untrained and/or inexperienced.

I don't believe that each individual police officer should be elected. All of a sudden, a police officer's job retention is based more off of charisma than discipline.

There's way too much police hate on this board

[Theocrat]

No, we shouldn't elect police officers. We should increase "competition" by ensuring all households are allowed to own and carry guns in public. The police should only be used as secondary responders. Once people become accustomed to protecting themselves and their loved ones (both at home and in public), then they will become less reliant upon the police. Then the municipalities will not have to raise more revenue through taxation to hire more cops. There (hopefully) won't be a need for so many policemen in communities and out on the streets because gun-owning, law-abiding citizens will be in control of their own security, at their own cost.

[heavenlyboy34]

No, we shouldn't elect police officers. We should increase "competition" by ensuring all households are allowed to own and carry guns in public. The police should only be used as secondary responders. Once people become accustomed to protecting themselves and their loved ones (both at home and in public), then they will become less reliant upon the police. Then the municipalities will not have to raise more revenue through taxation to hire more cops. There (hopefully) won't be a need for so many policemen in communities and out on the streets because gun-owning, law-abiding citizens will be in control of their own security, at their own cost.

Where do you find the basis for the legitimacy of government police? Your suggestion of well-armed citizens is a good one, though.

[heavenlyboy34]

That's looks more like what happens when your police or guards are untrained and/or inexperienced.

I don't believe that each individual police officer should be elected. All of a sudden, a police officer's job retention is based more off of charisma than discipline.

There's way too much police hate on this board
Nah. There's not enough of it.

[Theocrat]

Where do you find the basis for the legitimacy of government police? Your suggestion of well-armed citizens is a good one, though.

On the local level, families and communities voluntarily decide that there should be officers who protect their neighborhoods and homes on a full-time basis, while they, the citizens, go to school, go shopping, work, go on vacation, etc. After all, one can't spend eight hours a day protecting his field from would-be thieves when he has a harvest to reap so he can feed his family. ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

On the local level, families and communities voluntarily decide that there should be officers who protect their neighborhoods and homes on a full-time basis, while they, the citizens, go to school, go shopping, work, go on vacation, etc. After all, one can't spend eight hours a day protecting his field from would-be thieves when he has a harvest to reap so he can feed his family. ;)

And what if some decide they don't want said officers because they prefer some form of protection of their choosing? Who will protect one from rogue police officers (who will guard us from our guardians)?

You also dodged my earlier question-where do you find the legitimacy for government police officers? It's not in your beloved constitution.

[Theocrat]

And what if some decide they don't want said officers because they prefer some form of protection of their choosing? Who will protect one from rogue police officers (who will guard us from our guardians)?

Then those people can opt out and provide for their own form of protection, if they have the means to do so.

The courts will guard us from rogue police officers who violate the terms of their sworn duties towards those communities, through trials and arbitration, as needed.

[Theocrat]

You also dodged my earlier question-where do you find the legitimacy for government police officers? It's not in your beloved constitution.

I didn't dodge your question because I explained where that legitimacy came from: local people in the communities who are willing to come together and pay for the police. The reason I didn't appeal to the Constitution is because the federal government has no jurisdiction in the local affairs of the people, in matters of law enforcement and protection. Those are left up to the market and municipal governments.

[pcosmar]

On the local level, families and communities voluntarily decide that there should be officers who protect their neighborhoods and homes on a full-time basis, while they, the citizens, go to school, go shopping, work, go on vacation, etc. After all, one can't spend eight hours a day protecting his field from would-be thieves when he has a harvest to reap so he can feed his family. ;)

When have police EVER done that?

People need to be responsible for themselves. To be watchful of their neighborhoods.
Police came about by people being irresponsible,,Wanting someone else to do what they should be doing themselves, and are either too lazy or too cowardly to do.

[pcosmar]

There's way too much police hate on this board

I hate Authoritarianism . It is the direct opposite of Liberty.
Police are an invention of authoritarians. They should not exist in a free society.
The entire concept is contrary to the principles this country was founded on. Police did not come into existence till long after the founders died, and the principles were in decline.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

[Theocrat]

When have police EVER done that?

People need to be responsible for themselves. To be watchful of their neighborhoods.
Police came about by people being irresponsible,,Wanting someone else to do what they should be doing themselves, and are either too lazy or too cowardly to do.

Actually, the police serve and protect communities all the time. Sure, they may not always do it correctly or in the manner that we would deem necessary, but, on a minimal level, they are doing their jobs. I would even venture to say that cops in the earlier days were probably more friendly and just than the ones today.

I agree with you that people should be responsible for themselves in how they protect themselves. It is their primary duty. However, I don't see anything wrong with local communities coming together to have a general police force for their districts, if the people agree to pay for that service. One of the legitimate functions of civil government is the punishing of the wicked, on a civil level. So I say the local families in the municipalities have a right to form that kind of service.

[pcosmar]

Actually, the police serve and protect communities all the time..

I disagree. The police protect the system. The State.

And very early, in this country,, they simply did not exist.

Have you read this?
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm


professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement. Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding. Early constitutions enunciated the intention that law enforcement was a universal duty that each person owed to the community, rather than a power of the government. Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.

[Theocrat]

I disagree. The police protect the system. The State.

And very early, in this country,, they simply did not exist.

Have you read this?
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Well, my brother, we have the police now. There is no escaping that. I just think we need to increase gun rights protections for private citizens, and in time, let people "compete" with the police until local communities decide there is little to no need of them. But there is some truth in your statement that the police protect the State.

But also like another member stated, we need to ensure that we don't have so many laws for the police to enforce upon us, too. Getting rid of the police is entirely idealistic and not attainable in our lifetimes.

Maybe I will read that article sometime. It seems interesting.

[Working Poor]

I think we should comment on them being unionized and how it is possible that we have to pay them even when suspended. It makes my blood boil that we have unionized government employees.

Does this not bother anyone but me?

[IndianaPolitico]

Electing every single officer? In a roundabout way we do. The county sheriff then hires his officers, and the police chief who has been appointed by the mayor hires his. They are our REPRESENTATIVES. We have a Republican form of government....

[pcosmar]

Well, my brother, we have the police now. There is no escaping that.
I understand that. just as they had Centurions at one time, and the SS in another. I don't have to like it.

Getting rid of the police is entirely idealistic and not attainable in our lifetimes.
Perhaps so. The same could also be said for returning to a Constitutional Republic. But I still hold to hope.

Maybe I will read that article sometime. It seems interesting.
It is worth the time. And some added time in contemplation of both how things changed, and what could be.

[Vessol]

Electing every single officer? In a roundabout way we do. The county sheriff then hires his officers, and the police chief who has been appointed by the mayor hires his. They are our REPRESENTATIVES. We have a Republican form of government....

The police are my representatives?

I'll remember that when they break down my door because they thought I might be growing some inconspicuous vegetation and then kill my dog and hold me down while they taze me over and over again "STOP RESISTING!"

[heavenlyboy34]

I hate Authoritarianism . It is the direct opposite of Liberty.
Police are an invention of authoritarians. They should not exist in a free society.
The entire concept is contrary to the principles this country was founded on. Police did not come into existence till long after the founders died, and the principles were in decline.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

IOU some +rep when I get more ammo, pcosmar. :cool:

[Revolution9]

Better yet, let's privatize them. That is the only way they will ever be accountable for their actions.

Most trade on Dun & Bradstreet. Howzabout we have Police Men instead of officers? They are concerned with common law jurisdiction as opposed to legal jurisdiction.

Rev9

[Gumba of Liberty]

My suggestion to have police officer democratically elected is not, as most of you have inferred, because I do not want them eliminated in their present fashion. In a perfect world, I would want a private police force for my own bidding. Alas, we do not have a society that is capable of defending themselves. (If you would like to defend yourself on this point be my guest.) My point was to bring light to an idea that we could curb police brutality and injustice in the interim period that is necessary in order to get to a free-market world. It is not possible to disband the police today. It is possible to elect police officers to annual terms and have strict impeachment processes. My question was not fit for this board. Ronpaulforums.com is unique because we, the people of Ron Paul Forums, are more idealistic than the average person. I was asking this to a more general audience but if I was to rephrase it for y'all it would go like this:

If you could choose between the police we have now and an elected police department, which would you choose and why?

Enjoy

- Gumba of Liberty

[osan]

Electing them will solve nothing. See: Congress. And disarming them is to me an insane proposition. Why even have them at that point? Privatize? Sure, if you want giant too-big-to-fail corporations with an undying goal on profiting by arresting folks. And disbanding, worst idea. How do we protect ourselves against gangs and mobs? Am I supposed to fight them all off? The police afford me the ability to at least try to escape or hide temporarily. No police = certain death. Sure you could say I could hire my own security, but am I really supposed to afford $200,000 a year for multiple on-duty security guards? Really? I suggest simply putting greater restrictions on power and increased punishment for abuses. You murder somebody without cause, you get twice as much time as an average citizen. I know the anarchists will go nuts, but I never want to live in a society without some form of law enforcement.

This has got to be one of the most mind numbingly unrealistic opinions on the issue I have ever read.

[osan]

Actually, the police serve and protect communities all the time. Sure, they may not always do it correctly or in the manner that we would deem necessary, but, on a minimal level, they are doing their jobs. I would even venture to say that cops in the earlier days were probably more friendly and just than the ones today.

I agree with you that people should be responsible for themselves in how they protect themselves. It is their primary duty. However, I don't see anything wrong with local communities coming together to have a general police force for their districts, if the people agree to pay for that service. One of the legitimate functions of civil government is the punishing of the wicked, on a civil level. So I say the local families in the municipalities have a right to form that kind of service.

Police are entirely extraneous. Prior to the late 19th century we all got along from one day and one generation to the next very well without police.

A strong argument exists for the ability to discharge functions of governance in response to criminal acts. The need for police, as such, is historically demonstrated as unnecessary. The real question at hand is how are the functions of governance to be carried out? The whole concept of police, especially as they currently operate, is utterly and violently repugnant to, and in opposition to the notion of personal liberty.