
Originally Posted by
guartz
Let's talk philosophy, because I think our root disagreement is there. Interestingly this argument is ancient.
My understanding is, the reason government has any authority at all is because they have the monopoly on violence in any particular region, indeed this is how we define the state, courtesy Max Weber.
If it becomes easy for organized groups to match or exceed this monopoly, the citizens loose their legal capacity to what we now consider criminal enterprises. Think racketeering and organized crime.
Now while I agree that competitive security forces and arbitration mechanisms would be more morally just, because of the competitive nature it creates, practically speaking it's a dead goose and society is not ready for that.
Better approach, imho, is not nerfing the police but adjusting what is considered a crime. California experimented with that a bit recently, I believe.