Throughout the summer and fall of 2007 a number of Kalamazoo neighborhoods were subjected to home invasions and break-ins at what seemed like a heavy rate. There was a good deal of fear amongst many in our Westwood neighborhood, there was also an encouraging amount of vigilance amongst our neighbors. It did not take long before we organized as a community to talk about solutions and how to protect ourselves.

One of the more disappointing aspects of the early stages of the occurrences was that the City police really did not have much knowledge as to the frequency of invasions in our area. They really did not realize that all these burglaries were occurring in the same geographical location.

As I sat in the neighborhood meeting it occurred to me that police safety is a good that is administered, for individuals, primarily by government. Which is strange given that the individuals security needs of any one person are quite varied, how can one force adequately provide safety for the widowed great grandmother or the young single female, whose desires for protection would seem to be quite high, while at the same time providing security for the 6'6", 250 lb nocturnal, retired armed forces sharp shooter, who teaches martial arts. Can our government provided police force know the needs of all individuals, and further, what monetary value each individual would place on those services?

When I look at the current model of protection it appears quite fractured to me and suboptimal. It seems to me that the government provided police force provides some rudimentary level of protection. Another level of protection is provided by security monitoring services that can be purchased for some monthly fee. Finally, each individual must always be responsible for his/her own safety, taking steps that range from purchasing and training for firearms to merely ensuring doors and windows are locked.

Is it possible that there are individuals amongst us that have no desire to pay for safety services? What value do these individuals receive then from their tax dollars? Surely, these if given the chance would "opt out" of government sponsored safety services and desire to receive a refund of their tax dollars. I believe individuals should have the ability to do so.

Perhaps individuals would feel better served by using their refunded tax dollars to purchase home or business monitoring from a professional corporation, perhaps they could construct their own video surveillance system, or perhaps they could take their refunded monies and purchase their own private police.

Some might view this as a very foreign and even strange manner of thinking, but consider that private security now outnumbers public security by a 5-1 ratio. Private security forces are amongst the 50 fastest growing occupation or business start ups according to many business lists.

Several states have recognized this trend and now allow private police forces to make arrests. I believe the individuals and businesses of Michigan would benefit by allowing for competition into the security market. Government police being forced to compete for dollars with private forces would provide a more tailored security package to each individual or business, a more proactive security experience.

Further, individuals, now bearing a greater stake in their own protection would have greater financial incentive to take the the simple steps necessary to help protect themselves and their belongings.

Soft Drug Legalization

The 2008 Michigan ballot is likely to feature a referendum on the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. I don't necessarily support this referendum, I think it quite silly in fact.

However, I do support the legalization of "soft drugs" such as marijuana. I don't come to this conclusion because I believe it would be a great revenue generator for the state, or necessarily because it would save the state millions of dollars on policing, legal proceedings and confinement of offenders. I don't come to this conclusion because I desire the "hop-head" vote. I come to this conclusion based upon economic truths. Namely, that individuals have less incentive to abstain from irresponsible drug use based upon the threat of prosecution from the government than they have from their own self interest or their financial self interest. Financial self interest would lead one to accept the terms of his/her employer's condition, which may include being drug-free.

The need for police services would be reduced with the legalization of some drugs. Currently, those involved in the illegal trade must provide for their own safety and terms of trade, those terms frequently involve force, for which public safety must be called to investigate subsequently.
Associated links

Osterfeld, David. Anarchism and the Public Goods Issue: Law, Courts, and the Police. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX: 1 (winter 1989).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88074698

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100665.html