Thomas Massie on Defund the Police and Prime Act

[Brian4Liberty]

Thomas Massie on Defund the Police and Prime Act

After Hours catches up with Rep. Thomas Massie -- the congressman serving Kentucky's 4th district – to discuss police reforms and defunding, how the economy intersects with the coronavirus pandemic and a new PRIME Act to help farmers during this time.

[jmdrake]

Thomas Massie on Defund the Police and Prime Act

First time ever I have disagreed with Thomas Massie. Defuding the police doesn't = no police. At least not the way has been done in Camden New Jersey. The police were all fired, then they could re-apply for their jobs after being retrained. The costs went down, the number of police brutality incidents went down crime went down including murders! Back in 2014 conservatives like Rand Paul and Mike Hucakbee were calling for de-militarisation of the police. There's no reason for me to have seen one of these rolling down my city's streets today.

[Brian4Liberty]

First time ever I have disagreed with Thomas Massie. Defuding the police doesn't = no police. At least not the way has been done in Camden New Jersey. The police were all fired, then they could re-apply for their jobs after being retrained. The costs went down, the number of police brutality incidents went down crime went down including murders! Back in 2014 conservatives like Rand Paul and Mike Hucakbee were calling for de-militarisation of the police. There's no reason for me to have seen one of these rolling down my city's streets today.
...

Well, the terminology is open to interpretation, and it is very fluid at the moment. All Massie said was that a minimal Police is required as a basic role of government.

There could be debate that the concept of Police was not original, as Sheriffs and their Deputies originally filled that role. Certainly Massie doesn't agree with militarization of Police or Sheriffs departments.

I would add that public sector unions are not an original intent. There is a huge amount of reform that should take place. And I'd wager Massie would agree. No doubt all libertarians would agree that Police reform does not include diverting those Police funds to someone else.

[jmdrake]

Well, the terminology is open to interpretation, and it is very fluid at the moment. All Massie said was that a minimal Police is required as a basic role of government.

There could be debate that the concept of Police was not original, as Sheriffs and their Deputies originally filled that role. Certainly Massie doesn't agree with militarization of Police or Sheriffs departments.

I would add that public sector unions are not an original intent. There is a huge amount of reform that should take place. And I'd wager Massie would agree. No doubt all libertarians would agree that Police reform does not include diverting those Police funds to someone else.

You would lose that wager. Ron Paul often talked about what we could afford to do at home if we weren't spending all of this money on military interventions overseas. The exact same thing can be said about over policing. Again in Camden crime went down as spending on police went down. So why couldn't the money saved be diverted somewhere else, especially if that diversion helps further reduce crime? One problem both with crime and with police brutality is mental health. I'd rather have an unarmed mental health professional approach an unbalanced person than some armed cop who things he must "get control" of the situation. They already do that in Oregon with good results. How about money for vocational training in high school, something that Donald Trump talked about in the last state of the union address? Part of the reason so many inner city teenagers get involved in drug gangs is that they have no marketable skills even if they earn their HS diploma and no real college prospects. Any true libertarian should be willing to jump on diverting funds from a program that isn't getting the desired results to ones that arguably achieve the same results at less cost.