Theoretical Discussion: No Police Force

[Johnny Monsoon]

There have been a couple theoretical discussions here of late (like the effects of immortality on society).  And there have also been quite a few police related threads which have spawned a pretty clean division about officer's perceptions and the public's perceptions of them.

So I got to thinking, what would be the effects, do you think, if we didn't employ a police force?  I'm not suggesting that we don't have a military, but I am expecting that we won't see martial law being enforced.

The police force both helps and hinders us.  It seems like the vast majority of their efforts are misguided and generally aimed at minor infractions which are politically based rather than preserving the actual peace and safety of the citizens in its care (and by this, I do not mean pulling someone over for a burnt out headlight, but actually stopping violent crimes).  I believe that the population would generally put limits on itself.  The moral compass tends to run within a standard tolerance regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion.  Throughout history, the employment of a militant/policing agency has always emerged not to serve the people but to preserve the wealth of the ruler by controlling the ruler's public.  I believe that is still largely the case, despite the best efforts of police with good intentions and pure ideals.

I believe people would more actively defend themselves, and at the same time reform much tighter, and less litigious communities.  Certainly, an armed society is a polite society, and we all know that's true.  I believe a courts system could remain, and be fully active and healthy without the aid of police officers.  I believe the massive expense incurred by police forces could be better spent elsewhere.

I believe our society would improve.  We would have to behave like adults and take responsibility for our actions, and also act for ourselves, without fear of persecution for defending ourselves in times of need.  

Discuss.

[Scratch33]

What about the rest of the judicial system and penal system?   Can they operate w/o police, and vice versa?

[bunchabull]

Putting aside violent crime for a minute, can you imagine what traffic would be like if everyone could drive whenever and however they liked?

[Scratch33]

  Certainly, an armed society is a polite society, and we all know that's true.

 

[wibornz]

Well this is easy, just look at some of the African countries that have no formal police.  It seams to be working out great for the warlords, rapist and overall thugs. Heck is some of the countries, you can get someone killed for three whole American dollars. We could all go back to ruling by sword.  

In reality the police/law enforcement is a gang.  A bigger stronger gang than any other gang. By and large, they protect the citizens in a good way.  

After spending 20+ years working in various prisons from minimum to super maximum, I would tell you that the average person in America does not have a clue as to the type of people that exist in the fringe of our society.  It is only because of police that these predators are pulled out of society and kept from the sheep in society. Believe me 99% of people are sheep.  I could type for days about people that are leaders and would rule or did rule their towns or communities until the police stopped it.  

No police,  gun up and not just you, but all of your friends and stay tight. After all that is what has to happen.  

I think we forget that the police do it so we don't have to.

[Johnny Monsoon]

What about the rest of the judicial system and penal system?   Can they operate w/o police, and vice versa?

I fail to see why not.  In fact, I believe they'd be far more efficient since the majority of the trivial actions brought into the courts system would be absent.

[Johnny Monsoon]

Well this is easy, just look at some of the African countries that have no formal police.  It seams to be working out great for the warlords, rapist and overall thugs. Heck is some of the countries, you can get someone killed for three whole American dollars. We could all go back to ruling by sword.  

In reality the police/law enforcement is a gang.  A bigger stronger gang than any other gang. By and large, they protect the citizens in a good way.  

After spending 20+ years working in various prisons from minimum to super maximum, I would tell you that the average person in America does not have a clue as to the type of people that exist in the fringe of our society.  It is only because of police that these predators are pulled out of society and kept from the sheep in society. Believe me 99% of people are sheep.  I could type for days about people that are leaders and would rule or did rule their towns or communities until the police stopped it.  

No police,  gun up and not just you, but all of your friends and stay tight. After all that is what has to happen.  

I think we forget that the police do it so we don't have to.

You can't really compare the two.  Let's go ahead and look at Africa.  The Warlords are warlords because their society is unarmed, and because trade is not enforced, and the social code there is loose and fast.  We don't live in that society.

Now look at Doha.  While it isn't exactly a model for America, the police presence is almost nil.  They do have a present military, but largely things are left to be settled amongst themselves.  Driving, as mentioned above, can be interesting for sure, but again, people are generally not so uptight and they get where they want.  When everyone realizes they're responsible for themselves, and that if they fail to respect their fellow citizens (or worse, actively disrespect) they know there's a heavy consequence.  Keeps folks in line.

Let's look at Thailand.  Again, very little in the way of any police presence.  Some of that society is heartbreaking to see, however the vast majority of places are peaceful, beautiful, and organized.  Traffic is insane, but again, people are careful with eachother.

[Scratch33]

I fail to see why not.  In fact, I believe they'd be far more efficient since the majority of the trivial actions brought into the courts system would be absent.

And the non-trivial actions will be brought into the courts by..............................?

[Johnny Monsoon]

And the non-trivial actions will be brought into the courts by..............................?

People who present themselves to the courts systems.  Just like it has worked for thousands upon thousands of years in other societies.

This isn't a 'bash a cop' thread, but just an exercise to explore the idea.

[Scratch33]

People who present themselves to the courts systems.

Ah, so it's all voluntary now?  

[Scratch33]

Just like it has worked for thousands upon thousands of years in other societies.

Give us a modern-day example.

[PatM]

I fail to see why not.  In fact, I believe they'd be far more efficient since the majority of the trivial actions brought into the courts system would be absent.

You're talking about a lawless society, where the strongest (meanest, baddest, etc) wins. There could be no justice system as the courts could not enforce any decisions. Who would go out and arrest the villain?
Why bother with courts then? Why not just get a mob and lynch him? That would be fast and efficient.

[PatM]

Throughout history, the employment of a militant/policing agency has always emerged not to serve the people but to preserve the wealth of the ruler by controlling the ruler's public.  I believe that is still largely the case, despite the best efforts of police with good intentions and pure ideals.

The rich would still profit of having no police. They would have their own armed men.

[PatM]

In reality the police/law enforcement is a gang.  A bigger stronger gang than any other gang. By and large, they protect the citizens in a good way.  

Yes the police is a gang. They use force / threat of force. But they work at enforcing rules which we call laws. Laws aren't perfect but at least they should be the same for every one. And police also have to abide by those laws.

[The Shepherd]

No cops = anarchy.

There would be no reason to follow any type of laws since there would be no one to come and arrest you. If you think that handing everyone a gun would solve the issue, people would be getting blown away for every reason under the sun. Hell, the next time the neighbour next door decides to mow is lawn at 6:30am, I'd shoot him from my bathroom window, take his gun so I have an extra one and sell his wife and kids into slavery.

So what would stop the millions of un-employed from just taking what they want? Screw it, why would I go to work everyday? I'd just take what I wanted and shoot anyone that gets in my way.

The neighbour chick across the street is nice to look at, I think I'd abduct her and start my own harem. First I'd have to snipe her husband from the spare bedroom and then she'd be mine. Maybe I wouldn't sell the neighbour wife into slavery but use her as a maid since she's pretty fat and wouldn't be "harem" quality.


I don't believe for one second that humans could follow some moral code without the Rule of Law and the threat of being locked up in jail. Look at what happened after Katrina.

[PatM]

Yes, if we had a society where 100% of the population lived by a strict moral code, the same for every one, we could do without police.

[Windblown]

There is a term for what you describe: Anarchy While it may be ok on paper it totally fails to take into account the darker side of human nature.  This has been understood by societies dating back to early civilization.

However, I agree that in our attempts to make things "Better" we have in general made things worse.  Our system of laws, and those that enforce those laws them should not unduly encroach on our personal freedoms yet of late they do just that on an ever increasing basis. We have become far too proactive in our attempts to prevent harm to others and in the process have become much more like a police state. The opposite side of the coin, and arguably just as bad.

Everything in moderation. Words to live by.

[Justin]

I know if there was no police force, that I would act completely different myself; so I assume everyone else would as will. For example, if I had no fear of a traffic stop, I would ride/drive around at 100+ Mph everywhere. If everyone was doing that it would be mess  .

[miles]

The rich would still profit of having no police. They would have their own armed men.

Which is exactly what happens in Mogadishu right now.

[miles]

Well this is easy, just look at some of the African countries that have no formal police.  It seams to be working out great for the warlords, rapist and overall thugs. Heck is some of the countries, you can get someone killed for three whole American dollars. We could all go back to ruling by sword.  

Exactly.  Somalia is a Libertarian paradise in some ways.

[bomber]

Johnny

I suggest you read "Lord of the Flies."

I believe it might take as much as three weeks for a society to devolve into an elementry school playground.

With firearms.

While "good" people, I think, far outnumber the other kind, the other kind will force their behavior on the remainder too sweet.

Society has had, literally, thousands of years to evolve into anything that might work. Relatively safe societies that allow their populace the opportunity to survive past puberty, create art and science, and generally be places most anyone would want to live, well, they look pretty similar, and they include police -- as others have said, examples of a completely non-authoritarian society abound, especially in East Africa.

Expecting otherwise is like Ron Paul supporters claiming the the markets would self-regulate in the favor of all law abiding people, and that, lacking government oversite, heavy polluters would be stopped and fined by some unnamed force.

I believe this to be, at best, naive.

I've spent a small amount of time in areas that were completely libertarian (taken to the illogical extreme). No thanks.

[zer0netgain]

You ask a question that brings up fundamental issues of law and government and society.

A culture always needs "protectors."  If a society is evolved and based on a philosophy that government is the SERVANT of the people, the protectors can be a very good and needful thing.

Likewise, in a culture that is backwards, primitive or otherwise based on a philosophy that government is the MASTER of the people, the protectors are often the people to fear.

In America, the police are increasingly more the PROBLEM than the SOLUTION to social ills.  As the state embraces the mentality that it exists to RULE over the people, police ultimately become the tools of government oppression...mindlessly chanting "I'm just doing my job" to justify going from men and women sworn to uphold the Constitution to stooges who do the government's bidding.

As far as no police = anarchy....well go live anyplace in the USA sufficiently rural that you're lucky if you see a cop go by once a month and calling 911 means an hour or so before you get any help.  This is just reality, but rural areas have less crime issues as people take their own self-defense more seriously than those who think a call to 911 will solve their ills.

The sad reality in most "free" nations is that the court system, law enforcement, etc. is all a money racket.  A community hires police to be there for emergencies, but often their "productivity" is measured in how much revenue generation they can do for the city.  Yes, people break laws that generate fines.  Some of these violations are egregious enough to justify fines being levied.  Still, the threshold for citing people is often low enough that fines are imposed for largely harmless violations where NOBODY was harmed or in any real danger of harm.  Some places deliberately do things like insanely slow speed limits knowing it will net more "speeders" and higher fines.  In this way, we don't need a police force.  They aren't protecting society, they are exploited by those in power to steal from the citizenry.  Cops are paid to prevent crime, not generate revenue.  Their effectiveness should be measured in how well they lower crime rates or prevent them from rising...not in how many speeding or parking citations they can churn out on a monthly basis.

[Windblown]

As far as no police = anarchy....well go live anyplace in the USA sufficiently rural that you're lucky if you see a cop go by once a month and calling 911 means an hour or so before you get any help.  This is just reality, but rural areas have less crime issues as people take their own self-defense more seriously than those who think a call to 911 will solve their ills.

I live in a pretty rural area with one of, if not the, lowest crime rates in the state. We probably have more livestock than people.  Having the willingness to defend one self does not negate the benefit of a law enforcement presence (though it's deputies, not police in my neck of the woods).  It's nice to have someone whose job is to track down and investigate crime and bring those suspected in for trial.  I'm not too likely to join a posse to chase down a drunk who crashed into farmer Joe's fence and ran off. LOL

As for the rest of what you said, I agree more than not.

[County Tar]

Well this is easy, just look at some of the African countries that have no formal police.  It seams to be working out great for the warlords, rapist and overall thugs. Heck is some of the countries, you can get someone killed for three whole American dollars. We could all go back to ruling by sword.  

In reality the police/law enforcement is a gang.  A bigger stronger gang than any other gang. By and large, they protect the citizens in a good way.  

After spending 20+ years working in various prisons from minimum to super maximum, I would tell you that the average person in America does not have a clue as to the type of people that exist in the fringe of our society.  It is only because of police that these predators are pulled out of society and kept from the sheep in society. Believe me 99% of people are sheep.  I could type for days about people that are leaders and would rule or did rule their towns or communities until the police stopped it.  

No police,  gun up and not just you, but all of your friends and stay tight. After all that is what has to happen.  

I think we forget that the police do it so we don't have to.

+1

I also had over 20 years in the criminal justice system.  Anyone who thinks we could operate without a police force is fooling themselves.  Small towns would probably do OK as they would just shoot or run off the bad guys.  The big cities would be scary.

[CLAY]

But aren't people basically good, mostly choosing the right thing?  

[wibornz]

But aren't people basically good, mostly choosing the right thing?  

Yes, depending where you live.  You see they prosecute crime differently from where you live to other places.  For example

Detroit.  A man breaks into an occupied home (Home invasion 1st Degree) shoots and wounds the man in the arm (Attempted Murder and Felony Firearm), then beat the woman (Felonious Assault) goes into the bedroom and steals the man's wallet and wife's purse (Armed Robbery) then flees the home.

Guess what he was sent to Prison for? Then guess how much time he will serve?   Hint remember this is in Detroit the 2nd most dangerous city in the US.

[Fourstring]

In America, the police are increasingly more the PROBLEM than the SOLUTION to social ills.  As the state embraces the mentality that it exists to RULE over the people, police ultimately become the tools of government oppression...mindlessly chanting "I'm just doing my job" to justify going from men and women sworn to uphold the Constitution to stooges who do the government's bidding.

Disagree.  Let's move away from the big, violent crimes and look at the more banal stuff.

Drunk husband is beating the shit out of his wife in a "domestic disturbance".  In your police-less society, the neighbors would band together and intervene?  Or 'do the right thing'?  Let's pick a habitual drunk driver out of a neighborhood; most have at least one.  No cops exist, so he's going to conform based on pressure from society and stop driving through town blitzed?

No, they're gonna wish they could call the cops to handle that dirty laundry.

[Formerly Known as Bigfoot]

What would KenH say?

[TuffguyF4i]

Putting aside violent crime for a minute, can you imagine what traffic would be like if everyone could drive whenever and however they liked?

Have you ever driven through jersey?  

[Johnny Monsoon]

Interesting replies.  Strange that they are what they are.  Go back 100 years.  Police were scarce, and lawlesness wasn't a problem.  If anything the moral fiber was significantly higher.  Towns and suburbs were effectively self-regulated.  One could make a very valid argument that as the police presence increased, so did corruption.

[94gixxerod]

Interesting replies.  Strange that they are what they are.  Go back 100 years.  Police were scarce, and lawlesness wasn't a problem.  If anything the moral fiber was significantly higher.  Towns and suburbs were effectively self-regulated.  One could make a very valid argument that as the police presence increased, so did corruption.

Dude, pretty sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek. Lawlessness not a problem?  Towns and suburbes effectively self-regulated? Moral fiber significantly higher? Hmmm...
Much of Africa is highly organized through tribal affiliations. There certainly is enforced codes of conduct and policing in deed if not name. Collections of people just keep on organizing in interesting ways and the earth keeps spinning...

[miles]

Interesting replies.  Strange that they are what they are.  Go back 100 years.  Police were scarce, and lawlesness wasn't a problem.  If anything the moral fiber was significantly higher.  Towns and suburbs were effectively self-regulated.  One could make a very valid argument that as the police presence increased, so did corruption.

You shoulda posted this in the "You Laugh, you lose" thread.

[Formerly Known as Bigfoot]

Interesting replies.  Strange that they are what they are.  Go back 100 years.  Police were scarce, and lawlesness wasn't a problem.  If anything the moral fiber was significantly higher.  Towns and suburbs were effectively self-regulated.  One could make a very valid argument that as the police presence increased, so did corruption.

    I was going to reply but why?

[Snowbird]

"... and above us only sky..."

[Johnny Monsoon]

Dude, pretty sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek. Lawlessness not a problem?  Towns and suburbes effectively self-regulated? Moral fiber significantly higher? Hmmm...
Much of Africa is highly organized through tribal affiliations. There certainly is enforced codes of conduct and policing in deed if not name. Collections of people just keep on organizing in interesting ways and the earth keeps spinning...

Africa is an awful model.  You could point to a bunch of other places.  Africa has a few folks who control vital resources and are armed and employ martial law.  Arguably, what Africa is above all else is an EXTREME police presence.  Just because we call them thugs/warlords doesn't mean that they aren't a policing force.  And that is the crux of this whole thing.

And yes, gun violence was lower back in the expansion days than it is now.  The stories of the 'wild west' were greatly exaggerated.  Even the hardcore, notorious killers were well known and there was about, what... 6 of them?  And the killing they did with the relative 'lawlessness' was less than the run-of-the-mill violent criminal will do today.

[The Shepherd]

Africa is an awful model.  You could point to a bunch of other places.  Africa has a few folks who control vital resources and are armed and employ martial law.  Arguably, what Africa is above all else is an EXTREME police presence.  Just because we call them thugs/warlords doesn't mean that they aren't a policing force.  And that is the crux of this whole thing.

And yes, gun violence was lower back in the expansion days than it is now.  The stories of the 'wild west' were greatly exaggerated.  Even the hardcore, notorious killers were well known and there was about, what... 6 of them?  And the killing they did with the relative 'lawlessness' was less than the run-of-the-mill violent criminal will do today.

I think you have a romaticized view of the past and a distorted view of the present.

[GerryPetrecca]

Putting aside violent crime for a minute, can you imagine what traffic would be like if everyone could drive whenever and however they liked?

It's already like that now!!!    

[94gixxerod]

I think you have a romaticized view of the past and a distorted view of the present.

This

[FiremanBob]

One of the things that makes civilized society civilized is that we have delegated to the government a monopoly on the use of force to enforce the law. To do that we need to have a professional police force. Even Ayn Rand, who is often misconstrued as an anarchist, wrote extensively on this topic in her essay, "The Nature of Government".

The contentious issue then becomes, "Which laws are reasonable and necessary to protect individual rights in a civil society?" The kind of legislative and bureaucratic overreach, and the abdication of adult responsibility, in our society today forces police to spend time and effort enforcing ludicrous, counterproductive laws...such as busting pot smokers, invading guitar factories, and hauling first-graders out of school in handcuffs for drawing a picture of a gun.

This is not to say we do not need our 2nd Amendment rights to be armed and to defend ourselves (and our property and families). Even a professional police force cannot prevent all crimes, not protect people under attack from violent criminals. To give up the right of self-defense to a less-than-effective arm of government is a form of suicide that cannot be accepted in a free society.

[County Tar]

Go back 100 years.  Police were scarce, and lawlesness wasn't a problem.  If anything the moral fiber was significantly higher.

Actually things were more violent back in the 1800's, depending upon where you lived.  Back in the 1970's a study was done comparing Cincinnati in its early years to the then current crime rates.  The 1840's and 1850's were considerably more violent.  

IIRC there was a woman bar owner there in the 1850's who had a jar of ears that she had bit off of unruly patrons.  Presumably none of them went to the police to lodge a complaint.  

[UFO]

The majority of us would continue to behave like rational humans.

The remainder...the ones that cause laws to actually be made in the first place to protect us from them, or them from themselves, or both...would be completely out of control to the detriment of society as a whole.

The worst I would do is speed...a lot.  

[Ack535]

The first and foremost responsibility of government is to protect its citizens against all threats, foreign and domestic.

Yes we all dislike getting a speeding infraction or parking ticket, however we as society have evolved into a state of rules and regulations that govern behavior. Everyone loves the law until it is enforced on them.

WibornZ (Ted) is absolutely correct. You the general public have NO IDEA what evil lurks behind those prison walls. Without the police to enforce the laws, and the correction officers to keep them in, those truly evil individuals would be free to run amok amongst us. This scenario would eventually lead to anarchy and a collapse of society as we know it. We as law enforcement professionals protect those who cannot, or could not protect themselves.

Everyone hates the cops until they really need one...

[TuffguyF4i]

I would argue that morality governs behavior, not laws.  

I think this is a fantastic quote...
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -- Benjamin Franklin


"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams

"[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. [T]herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God." --Guverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution.

"Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society." --George Washington

[Johnny Monsoon]

The first and foremost responsibility of government is to protect its citizens against all threats, foreign and domestic.

Yes we all dislike getting a speeding infraction or parking ticket, however we as society have evolved into a state of rules and regulations that govern behavior. Everyone loves the law until it is enforced on them.

WibornZ (Ted) is absolutely correct. You the general public have NO IDEA what evil lurks behind those prison walls. Without the police to enforce the laws, and the correction officers to keep them in, those truly evil individuals would be free to run amok amongst us. This scenario would eventually lead to anarchy and a collapse of society as we know it. We as law enforcement professionals protect those who cannot, or could not protect themselves.

Everyone hates the cops until they really need one...

I submit that when you combine people who would commit a violent crime (nearly all who come from subcultures that celebrate violence as a method to establish pecking order) you will find that population will swing to the most extreme violent end of the spectrum as there is no reward (and arguably much more severe punishment) for being lawful.  

I did a lot of growing up in DC when it had the highest murder rate and violent crime in the nation.  My school, for whatever reason, had a bunch of kids who decides to start some race war (no, im not exaggerating or inducing humor).  I've traveled to a lot of places most of you will probably never even bother to read about and have seen almost every major culture from the inside out.

I live in Texas now, just east of Dallas.  The folks here have a very nice society.  They take pride in their area and community and celebrate the blending of a lot of different cultures.  I am frequently surprised by the tolerance I see exhibited here in this classically conservative area when compared to the very liberal areas I have live in.  

What I've seen though, about where I live in TX, is that while there is a police presence, it isn't counted on much, especially not in the more rural areas.  The citizens communities show a lot of respect to eachother.  I don't think that it is any coincidence! That almost everyone is armed.  Further, there is an intolerance for those who want to bring in a bad influence (violent crime, drugs, etc.).  It isn't tolerated by the communities, and so doesn't ever get the chance to embed itself.  The police have little to do with that.  This, surprisingly, is the best place I have ever lived.  

[JonS]

I submit that when you combine people who would commit a violent crime (nearly all who come from subcultures that celebrate violence as a method to establish pecking order) you will find that population will swing to the most extreme violent end of the spectrum as there is no reward (and arguably much more severe punishment) for being lawful.  

I did a lot of growing up in DC when it had the highest murder rate and violent crime in the nation.  My school, for whatever reason, had a bunch of kids who decides to start some race war (no, im not exaggerating or inducing humor).  I've traveled to a lot of places most of you will probably never even bother to read about and have seen almost every major culture from the inside out.

I live in Texas now, just east of Dallas.  The folks here have a very nice society.  They take pride in their area and community and celebrate the blending of a lot of different cultures.  I am frequently surprised by the tolerance I see exhibited here in this classically conservative area when compared to the very liberal areas I have live in.  

What I've seen though, about where I live in TX, is that while there is a police presence, it isn't counted on much, especially not in the more rural areas.  The citizens communities show a lot of respect to eachother.  I don't think that it is any coincidence! That almost everyone is armed.  Further, there is an intolerance for those who want to bring in a bad influence (violent crime, drugs, etc.).  It isn't tolerated by the communities, and so doesn't ever get the chance to embed itself.  The police have little to do with that.  This, surprisingly, is the best place I have ever lived.  

I think you need this guy and never leave suburban Texas.

[antvq]

Didn't we just try this?   Oh yeah, all the Occupy camps that the cops were not allowed to enter.   They set up their own little society.    After a few weeks what did we get?   Murder, rape, assaults, overdoses, etc.

Lord of the Rings right before our eyes.    Folks went in with the best of intentions but seems like humans are just not hardwired to live without some kind of structured and enforced laws.

[Kneescrubber]

I personally don't want to live in a society that has no laws and no one to enforce said laws. Otherwise I'll be forced to shoot everyone I meet.

[bassjones]

Exactly.  Somalia is a Libertarian paradise in some ways.

No, Somalia is an Anarchists paradise.  There is a massive difference between those two philosophies, though many people seem to confuse the two.  Libertarianism believes in limited government and limited policing, only to enforce laws against harm to persons or property. Anarchists believe in zero government and zero policing.

[wibornz]

I submit that when you combine people who would commit a violent crime (nearly all who come from subcultures that celebrate violence as a method to establish pecking order) you will find that population will swing to the most extreme violent end of the spectrum as there is no reward (and arguably much more severe punishment) for being lawful.  

I did a lot of growing up in DC when it had the highest murder rate and violent crime in the nation.  My school, for whatever reason, had a bunch of kids who decides to start some race war (no, im not exaggerating or inducing humor).  I've traveled to a lot of places most of you will probably never even bother to read about and have seen almost every major culture from the inside out.

I live in Texas now, just east of Dallas.  The folks here have a very nice society.  They take pride in their area and community and celebrate the blending of a lot of different cultures.  I am frequently surprised by the tolerance I see exhibited here in this classically conservative area when compared to the very liberal areas I have live in.  

What I've seen though, about where I live in TX, is that while there is a police presence, it isn't counted on much, especially not in the more rural areas.  The citizens communities show a lot of respect to eachother.  I don't think that it is any coincidence! That almost everyone is armed.  Further, there is an intolerance for those who want to bring in a bad influence (violent crime, drugs, etc.).  It isn't tolerated by the communities, and so doesn't ever get the chance to embed itself.  The police have little to do with that.  This, surprisingly, is the best place I have ever lived.  

I would tell you that you are not out at night, nor are you aware of what goes on around you.  If you have a smart phone, download the police scanner and listen up.  Or check out one of the crime maps for your area.  I get Law Enforcement Only bulletins from the Texas.  If you have a major hwy by your area,  drugs, drug money, and all kinds of crazy stuff is happening.

Also if there are little to no people, you should expect there to be little police presence.  Where I live, I might see a cop drive by once or twice a year.  Six miles away, they roll 12 cars deep into the messed up apartment complex.
Crime in the city by me in the last six days.  Mind you 99% you ask would say that Lansing is a quiet and relatively safe place to live.
http://www.crimemapping.com/map.aspx?aid=31132546-4b7b-4b9e-84f4-7f7c505955c9

For fun move the map over to Detroit.  800+ crimes in the last six days and the map can not plot anymore crimes.  It is full.  Fucking  Detroit.

[Johnny Monsoon]

No, Somalia is an Anarchists paradise.  There is a massive difference between those two philosophies, though many people seem to confuse the two.  Libertarianism believes in limited government and limited policing, only to enforce laws against harm to persons or property. Anarchists believe in zero government and zero policing.

Bingo.

[CLAY]

I would argue that morality governs behavior, not laws.  

I think this is a fantastic quote...
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -- Benjamin Franklin


"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams

"[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. [T]herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God." --Guverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution.

"Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society." --George Washington

The proof that all of these founding fathers disagreed with you is the Bill of Rights.  While they knew government needed good people, they also knew the will of the majority could trample the rights of the minority- that even with a just majority bad things could happen.

Didn't we just try this?   Oh yeah, all the Occupy camps that the cops were not allowed to enter.   They set up their own little society.    After a few weeks what did we get?   Murder, rape, assaults, overdoses, etc.

Lord of the Rings right before our eyes.  

[ConPilot1]

IIRC there was a woman bar owner there in the 1850's who had a jar of ears that she had bit off of unruly patrons.  Presumably none of them went to the police to lodge a complaint.  

That would be Gallus Mag. 6 foot tall Englishwoman. Nasty.
She was a member of one of the street gangs depicted in Gangs of New York.
The bar/building is still there in NYC and supposedly haunted by the ghost of Gallus Mag.

[bomber]

Didn't we just try this?   Oh yeah, all the Occupy camps that the cops were not allowed to enter.   They set up their own little society.    After a few weeks what did we get?   Murder, rape, assaults, overdoses, etc.

Lord of the Rings right before our eyes.    Folks went in with the best of intentions but seems like humans are just not hardwired to live without some kind of structured and enforced laws.

LOL -- Flies, Ant?

[antvq]

LOL -- Flies, Ant?

FAIL.   (besides you know what I meant  )

[TuffguyF4i]

The proof that all of these founding fathers disagreed with you is the Bill of Rights.  While they knew government needed good people, they also knew the will of the majority could trample the rights of the minority- that even with a just majority bad things could happen.

I used their statements, not mine..so that it was not my opinion being represented.  
They feared a government that did not do the will of the people.  They equally feared a people that became a corrupt majority.  

[CLAY]

I used their statements, not mine..so that it was not my opinion being represented.  
They feared a government that did not do the will of the people.  They equally feared a people that became a corrupt majority.  

Yep- I knew that, but I didn't make it clear.  Oops!

As to the second- you are correct.  They understood fallen man.

[FiremanBob]

Didn't we just try this?   Oh yeah, all the Occupy camps that the cops were not allowed to enter.   They set up their own little society.    After a few weeks what did we get?   Murder, rape, assaults, overdoses, etc.

Lord of the Rings right before our eyes.    Folks went in with the best of intentions but seems like humans are just not hardwired to live without some kind of structured and enforced laws.

A little research into the background and organization of Obama's Whiny Supporters indicates that the folks in charge did not go in with good intentions at all.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Tea Partiers can converge on DC, and tens of thousands in other cities, with zero incidents of crime, and even left the place cleaner than they found it.

[stew71]

Putting aside violent crime for a minute, can you imagine what traffic would be like if everyone could drive whenever and however they liked?

That's called Cairo, Egypt. Traffic signals are merely suggestions.  

[94gixxerod]

A little research into the background and organization of Obama's Whiny Supporters indicates that the folks in charge did not go in with good intentions at all.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Tea Partiers can converge on DC, and tens of thousands in other cities, with zero incidents of crime, and even left the place cleaner than they found it.

Yep, gotta Love folks supporting those 1%, who have all that money and power and they don't have to camp out.

[UFO]

Lord of the Rings right before our eyes.

 

[Bounce]

I think the best answer to the OP is a book by L. Neil Smith called, "The Probability Broach".

I highly recommend it.

http://northamericanconfederacy.wikidot.com/the-probability-broach

The ostensible point of divergence leading to the [differences between our current reality and that in the other dimension] is the addition of a single word in the preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence, wherein it states that governments "derive their just power from the unanimous consent of the governed."

Putting aside violent crime for a minute, can you imagine what traffic would be like if everyone could drive whenever and however they liked?

so says someone indoctrinated into a society where no one is responsible for their own actions. in such a world, each person would be completely and totally responsible for their actions (no "insurance" to shift the burden elsewhere, etc.). you commit a crime (which has now become limited to harming another or their property) and you (solely) make restitution. inattentive drivers? not after the word gets out that those people no longer can't drive but also had to sell everything they own to pay for the harm they caused.

you then expand that affect outward to more than just driving.

[Fourstring]

 inattentive drivers? not after the word gets out that those people no longer can't drive but also had to sell everything they own to pay for the harm they caused.

you then expand that affect outward to more than just driving.

But here's the rub; how do you enforce that?

"I have to sell everything for the harm I caused?  Make me."  Now what?

[bomber]

Unicorns.

[miles]

I think the best answer to the OP is a book by L. Neil Smith called, "The Probability Broach".

I highly recommend it.

http://northamericanconfederacy.wikidot.com/the-probability-broach

There's a web comic based on that chunk of fantasy:
http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn

[Bounce]

But here's the rub; how do you enforce that? "I have to sell everything for the harm I caused?  Make me."  Now what?

read the book. it's not about a lack of laws. it's about a simplification of the legal system and a change from paper criminals and a legal system intent on overly complex structures so that, eventually, everyone has done something wrong and a centralized, militarized police force holds sway over the fearful.

[Bounce]

funny they had to make a picture book to attract the attention of some readers.  

[Fourstring]

read the book. it's not about a lack of laws. it's about a simplification of the legal system and a change from paper criminals and a legal system intent on overly complex structures so that, eventually, everyone has done something wrong and a centralized, militarized police force holds sway over the fearful.

Sorry, I should have separated the discussion.  OP is 'no police force', so I was using that context.  Simplification of the legal process?  Yes please.