A recently widowed mother whose husband died of cancer found herself in another tragic situation. When she was at home with her child a thug with a knife decided it would be a jolly good idea to do a little breaking and entering. The mother called 911 but ended up having to defend herself as the phrase, “When seconds count the police are only minutes away.” was demonstrated once again:
Oklahoma news media have the compelling story of a shotgun-toting 18-year-old mother who killed an intruder on New Year’s Eve after a 911 operator told her, “Do what you have to do to protect your baby.”
The 911 conversation lasted for 21 minutes. Then the door gave in.
21 minutes, that’s how long the call laster and the police had not arrive. This story, along with many like it, demonstrate the fallacy of state provided protection. How horrible is it that the government not only maintains a monopoly on police protection but has also ruled that it has no obligation to actually provide you the promised services.
Let’s look at where police protection in this country currently sits. In almost all cases the state maintains a monopoly on armed protective services and even if a private alternative exists customers are unable to cease paying the government for it’s ill-provided protection service. See those who seek alternative protection and thus no longer desire to utilize the government provided police will be kidnapped by those very officer and tossed into a cage unless they begin paying again.
Even protecting yourself is burdensome if not impossible because of government laws. Many countries and individual states in the United States have strong laws against self-defense. Some states don’t allow individuals to carry firearms on their person, many states don’t have any form of stand your ground of castle doctrine laws on the books, and other states have strong restrictions on who can even own a gun. The lack of stand your ground and castle doctrine laws are perhaps the most egregious because it assumes guilt on behalf of the defender, and in the case of missing castle doctrine that guilt is still assumed in the defender’s own home.
Firearms are hands down the best tools available for person defense but access to them is strictly controlled. In the United States any person charged with a felony, even a non-violent felony, is prohibited from owning firearms. If the mother in this story had been in possession of enough marijuana to be charged with felony possession she likely wouldn’t have had that firearm available to her and she and her child would likely be dead now. Outside of the United States firearm possession is even more strictly controlled with complete prohibition existing in some countries. Were this mother in England she and her child would likely be dead. Thus self-protection has been taken from the state and is only granted to those it deems worthy.
This story only ended happily because the woman lived in a place that “allows” people to defend themselves, own a firearm, and she wasn’t an “undesirable” person. Even though she has paid for police protection and will have to continue paying she has no recourse for the fact a squad car hadn’t arrive after 21 minutes. Were she able to seek a private provider a contractual agreement could have been made requiring protection to arrive within a specified span of time or the mother would no longer be made to continue paying for services.
State provide protection is a fallacy because they don’t actually offer protection. If you call the state protection service they may or may not send somebody to help, it’s a crap shoot.