> And yes, the association between deputized slave patrols and Chicago and la police departments is sufficient to explain the harm these institutions cause.

People may not understand this, but simply restating a premise without further evidence makes the assertion weaker, not stronger. If there was evidence, it would have been presented.

> Policing, as an institution, should be eliminated

What would you do about murderers?

Like I said,

The police as an institution should be eliminated.

Was I unclear?

You were unclear about what happens next and I wanted to give you a chance to explain.

Because I don't think you meant that you would simply eliminate the police and allow murderers to roam free. Or allow private security forces, gangs, and warlords to take over.

So after you eliminate the police, how would you arrange your ideal society?

I would vastly prefer private security forces to provide defense for me than the police. History is full of examples of neighborhoods and ethnic groups organizing their own defenses to manage misbehavior from within and without those groups.

The existence of police dramatically harms the possibility of an ideal society, because they do so much violence with such immunity.

You seem to think that I believe that the status quo is somehow acceptable or tolerable.

This is like saying 'if the US military didn't initiate war against another country, how would it ensure compliance of that population with the wishes of the United States?'

Obviously the answer is to not go to war, and not concern oneself with whether or not another population is sufficiently compliant.

The full and detailed answer to your question is outlined in a book titled 'The problem of political authority: and examination on the right to coerce and the duty to obey'

You would prefer private security groups? I can't argue with your preferences, but Blackwater/Xe/Academi/Constellis roaming the streets enforcing their version of the law sounds much worse to me.

And in your ideal society, to whom could people turn for protection from the private security groups?

You didn’t answer the question which by definition is unclear.

What about the murders that police commit? I'm calling at least some police murderers, which isn't a contestable point.

Your question also assumes the point that police are useful for dealing with murderers, which is not a point I'll cede uncontested.

Policing, because it's founded on the initiation of violence, is immoral.

Mature people can solve problems without resorting to violence. We can solve the problem of others being willing to do violence to us, more easily without a police agency, than with a police agency.

If you or I wanted the freedom to do harm to others, the best route for both of us would be to go join a local police force because they have immunity for the crimes that they commit against citizens.

Police don't have immunity for the crimes they commit against citizens. Prosecutions are rare, but not unheard of.

And the problem isn't how to solve disputes between people who can solve problems without resorting to violence. The problem is how to deal with people who can't, or don't want to.

Someone has to use violence to resist violence. If you can think of a better way to govern that group, great, but just proposing to eliminate them entirely is a child's dream.

Even the book you mentioned acknowledges that. In the chapter Individual Security in a Stateless Society, it says:

> The inhabitants of the anarchic society would most likely wish to develop systematic institutions ... [that] serve the function that police serve in governmental systems.