The Difference Between Peace Officers and Police Officers.
By: Luke, Lantern
Tags: Economics, Politics, Law, Justice, Police

Legislation, particularly anti transparent subordinate legislation, is particularly dangerous when the contempt for transparency is infused with rigid enforcement protocols that are as unreasonable as the pseudo-legislation itself.

If the oath the police officers take to uphold the constitution were contractual as opposed to just being ceremonial, there would be monetary penalties levied at the offending officers imposed on them from an independent organization to stop the police from investigating themselves when the contract is breached. Considering that the police labor union only deals with budgetary matters, having the legislature put unconstitutional and non sensical laws into effect could cost the entire police service by requiring them to break their contracts on mass.

This is ought to be the case, but it is not. We(the governed) must dissent, innovate and find ways to stretch police resources thin when they try to shut businesses down or stop any other “illegal” activity which was a harmless custom a few years ago.

Police officers do not question why they are enforcing mindless laws because they enjoy the activity of their job. They want to utilize their weapons much like how the boxer wants to use his fists after a long off season. The more activity, the more fun.

The police service is a refuge for those who have a military mindset which thinks in terms of black and white. The public have no say in removing such militaristic individuals because there is not competition and therefore no market which trades value for value. When there is no market for law enforcement, the term police “service” is a laughable misnomer as the police do not have an incentive to supply you with scrupulous service because you are not a paying customer.

Apologists for the government may argue that the police have a necessary monopoly on the law to ensure society doesn’t degrade into chaos and lawlessness as seen with the Black Lives Matter(BLM) or Antifa protests.

This argument is incoherent as BLM protestors are distinct from BLM the organization, the organization recruits protestors by sensationalizing single anecdotes of police misconduct. Had the community George Floyd was brutalized in paid for their own private security, they would not have enforced a victimless(drug related) crime law. The BLM organization, at its core, does not care for victims of police misconduct. BLM organizers are socialist destructionists as their goal, in conjunction with the illegal Covid lockdowns, is to destroy small business, common decency, the family, national identity and the legal norms in order to install there own police force. BLM uses rebellion against the “system” as a bait and switch while left wing “intellectuals” are employed to continue the sentiment by encouraging it without ever mentioning the blatant terrorism(arson, looting) that has occurred in order to normalize the movement(i.e. professional sports teams, celebrities and politicians taking the knee).

BLM relies on police misconduct to add some clout to their socialist scheme, they rely on the perfect anecdote to make a production out of. If the police were privatized, BLM would be out of business as it would only be a lone company which would be reprimanded. If BLM were still able to recruit persons for a riot with the “white privilege” narrative, it would not matter as the politicians would have no way of politicizing(money driven incentives) private police because they are consumer driven and the consumers of those services vastly outnumber the politicians.

A private riot squad would have the freedom to be their own tacticians and use whatever advanced weaponry required to stop the riot without any oversight from an incentivized attorney general and police chief. It is much like an intruder breaking into a private residence, the owner must use severe or lethal force because he does not know the intentions of the intruder. The private riot squad, like the homeowner, must assume that a violent protest will have catastrophic consequences which entails using lethal force if necessary.

I would now like to demarcate government police from private law enforcement by examine the behavior of the gov. police and the likely behavior of private law enforcement:

(Private): The private riot squad would not be concerned about enforcing the law, they are more concerned about dissolving the threat to other peoples liberty. They do not care for prisoners because the customer does not want to pay put lock someone up as that would entail paying for the services required to sustain that prisoner.

(Government): The government riot squad does not seek to dissolve the riot but to facilitate order and enforce the law. The police will eventually zip tie and shackle the protestors and have them transported to jail in order to get booked. The public do not care for such law enforcement as they want to riot to be stopped before their businesses are looted and firebombed. The public does not care for prisoners as they would much rather see protestors obstructed from coming near them and their business.

Scenario: If 80 Catholic protestors walk into the senate to assemble and protest(not riot) peacefully, there are two distinct outcomes that occur:

(Government): The in-house police, who are rigidly concerned with enforcing the law as written without context, will take action against the ol’ Catholics by escalating issues by yelling at them before having them all zip tied and transported in a very expensive(and rather flash) tourist-like police bus. See here:Priests and nuns arrested for protesting Trump’s immigration policies in Washington, D.C. | Daily Mail Online

(Private): The private in-house police are more akin to security than police, they will only make an arrest if someone is unceasingly violent or conspires to cause damage to a senator or the building. A private police/security service would perhaps require members of the Catholic group to schedule an appointment in order to avoid overcrowding. If no such scheduling system existed, and they were able to simply walk in on mass, then the private security will engage them in a calm dialogue that they are over capacity. They will either have to leave the building on their own power or be escorted out. It is illogical to tie up peaceful religious protestors(some as old as 90) over an infringement that is victimless and non violent and that was made in good faith in order to precipitate reform.

A private security and police force would put less emphasis in tying people up head to toe in zip ties due to the scarcity of resources. The it amount of resources it takes to escort people off the property or by persuading them to leave the property is dwarfed by the amount of resources required to transport 80 plus prisoners. Peace officers, the night watchman, private security or whatever name you may assign to them are their to prevent not arrest. Their main priority is property, not prisoners.