Public safety under challenge

To challenge the very notion of public safety – of an institution called “police” – has become fashionable on the left. Perhaps it always was, but once this attitude was fashionable with almost as many “anarcho-capitalists” as leftists. It was, but for totally different reasons. Anarcho-capitalists feel that those having the most to lose to criminals, should pay the most – or shoulder the entire burden. But leftists have an entirely different motive. They want nothing and no one safe from them. Public safety, to them, is an inherently oppressive concept.

History of public safety

Some kind of public safety has been a feature of cities since humans began building cities. But the usual public safety providers were either the military or a private militia. Possibly the first municipal public safety force were a cadre of municipal slaves in ancient Athens. They carried rods, and the city tasked them with crowd control at public functions. Athens called them the rhabdouchoi – the rod bearers. Not only has the name stuck, but police officers ever since have carried some kind of rod, as a symbol of authority (like the Roman lictors that served as magisterial escorts) or as a weapon.

Police as we know them today began in Paris in 1667, under King Louis XIV – the Sun King. The French coined the word police from the Greek politeia, from polis, meaning a city. The custom spread over the ensuing decades to other countries in Europe. In 1829 Sir Robert Peel founded the London Metropolitan Police, called “Bobbies” or “Peelers” as puns on his name. Public safety in the United States began with local sheriffs (and federal marshals, especially in the expanding West). As cities grew, they established police departments. The oldest police force in the United States is the Philadelphia police department, dating to 1751.

Opposition to the concept

But police have always had opposition wherever established. This opposition usually comes from the notion that the police selectively enforce the law and selectively target certain groups. But opposition tends to decline when people perceive that they have equal opportunity – and opportunity requires an ordered society to be worth having. In general, those who have something worth stealing, and perceive themselves as targets, welcome any public safety measures. But those who do not have anything worth stealing, don’t care. And perhaps those who want to do the stealing, resent the police more than anyone else.

Robin Hood, whether he was a real person or not, remains a symbol of championship of the poor against a sheriff who looked after the interests of the rich at their expense. Jesse James was a real person, who developed a reputation for doing in real life what Robin Hood did only in legend. (Perhaps he did not deserve that reputation; no one ever saw him share his loot with anyone.) Nevertheless, as opportunity arises for more people, people appreciate measures for public safety and regard police as their friends.

A liberal journalist defends public safety

Yesterday a liberal journalist, one of the original Twitter Files journalists, defended the concept public safety on Twitter. Lee Fang, of The Free Press, is a resident of San Francisco. His colleague Mike Shellenberger, and Twitter owner Elon Musk, have noticed something very wrong with San Francisco recently. It started with the closure of the Whole Foods Market in the Trinity section of the city.

Lee Fang started with this thread, describing the plight of a friend who has suffered eight burglaries:

Aside from the users whose replies Mr. Fang quoted in his thread, someone else suggested that he move out of San Francisco. That started an interesting debate:

Three hours later, Lee Fang dropped these tweets:

Another user, who didn’t know Lee Fang’s reputation, dropped this thread, thinking to dispute him.

Mr. Fang replied:

See for yourselves what this illustrates. Mr. Fang represents that part of the political left that still understands, and values, public safety. But now an increasing part of the left wants nothing to do with public safety. And why? Because a thief is an irregular wealth redistribution agent. (And a murderer is an irregular population thinner.)

Mr. Fang, like his colleague Mr. Shellenberger, still values public safety – and can’t understand those who don’t. And they don’t understand him, either – they actually think he’s a conservative, when he is not. Nor will they understand when everyone else moves out – except the criminals.