I don't know about you, but being an oldster, I tend to look on the rioting antifa youth with a bit of a jaundiced eye. However, in addition to being a person of a certain age, I'm also a propertarian, so my take on political philosophy is not quite in synch with that of the Democrats and Republicans of my demographic. Nevertheless, it was with a certain amount of skepticism that, when I first came across a reference to the "Ten Demands," I clicked through.
Demand #1: "Defund the police and reallocate resources to impacted communities"
If defunding the police means letting the taxpayers spend their taxes as they wish, then I'd be all for "defunding." There are probably some things that the police do that some people would be willing to pay for, but this could be done in a market for police services.
However, if defunding the police entails continued violent appropriation of resources (taxation) to be re-distributed to various minoritarian interest groups, I'd be against that, so based on the wording of the Demand and subject to the proviso that it could be re-written in a more just form, I'd say disagree.
Demand #2: "Demilitarize the police"
Agree. This demand speaks to a troubling trend in the government monopoly police forces. "Militarization" seems to be connected with crowd control and other functions of an oppressive state. If we are to have government police, let the police forces be small and weak!
Demand #3: "Eliminate discriminatory policing, prosecution, and sentencing"
Agree, but the problem with this demand is that, even if you could wave a magic wand, and the criminal justice system were somehow reformed in a way that it could be determined that Afro-Americans were treated the same as all other ethnic groups, the system itself still has built-in injustice. Criminal justice is based on the premise that a "criminal" can be prosecuted for violating the criminal law because the infraction constitutes a violation of the "rights" of the state or the "people" collectively. I won't go into why I think this theory is wrong, but just note that we have a model for a just legal system in tort law. In tort law, there must be a specific victim and a specific perpetrator (tortfeasor), and the victim must be able to show that he or she suffered tangible damages at the hands of the tortfeasor. Most criminal laws would not pass such a high bar.
Demand #4: "Institute complete law enforcement transparency and accountability"
Agree, but as the demand is somewhat vague, I wonder how it would be met.
I'll guess that it is founded in the belief that a public entity, funded by public resources as it is, should be controlled or managed by the public. The problem is, who is the public? In a democracy, that can mean that control shifts when a new interest group wins an election. It could theoretically mean that if 51% of the voters didn't want "transparency and accountability," a demand to the contrary would be un-democratic.
Contrast the confusion about who can do what with public security with the idea of private (propertarian) security. A propertarian security market would evolve in response to consumer demand. The functions of the police might indeed be divided among various specialists, i.e., parking enforcers, social workers, bail bondsmen, security guards, bounty hunters, neighborhood watch, detective agencies, insurance investigators, etc. There might only be a small number of armed responders to violent violations of property rights, perhaps backed up by trained voluntary citizens' posses.
Demand #5: "Independently investigate all police crimes and abuses of power"
Agree. It seems obvious that an organization whose member(s) are accused of malfeasance should not be in charge of the investigation!
Demand #6: "Install community representation, oversight, and safety measures"
Disagree. The institution of these measures in the existing criminal justice system would only lead to more bureaucratization and likely to regulatory capture in an already unresponsive and irresponsible system.
Meanwhile, a propertarian legal system's adherence to legal norms is promoted by 1) continued voluntary patronization of for-profit entities by satisfied customers, and 2) citizen participation in non-profit voluntary organizations that perform certain functions in the legal system.
Demand #7: "End strategic counter-protest violence"
How do people in a propertarian society protest? If there were no "public property," protesters could nevertheless gather on any property whose owner(s) agreed to the protest event. "Counter-protesters" could only appear by consent of these owners, but a contract could be made between protesters and property owners that no counter-protesters would be allowed at the protest event.
Meanwhile, who may or may not protest on "public property" is a complex question decided by politicians who carefully weigh their decisions' effects on their re-election chances.
Demand #8: "Apologize and provide reparations"
Disagree, with the caveat that I might agree if the wording were more specific.
As for apologizing, it seems meaningless unless a specific rights-violator apologizes to his or her victim. A blanket "white-to-black" apology, if that's what's being demanded, would be a fallacy of collective thinking. One is supposed to be responsible for one's own actions, not the actions of other people.
The same principle applies to reparations for slavery. In the case of the enslavement of a certain person A by person B, person A should have a claim against person B. However, persons C, D, E, etc. have no grounds for a claim against B merely on the basis of ethnic affiliation with A.
Along these lines, Walter Block has made a seemingly valid propertarian argument for reparations, provided that just legal principles are followed. According to Block, reparations can be just if specific descendants of a victim of slavery can demonstrate a certain relationship to a certain slave-owner's property.
I would have to agree with a proposal for reparations if it were worded in conformity with Block's argument.
Demand #9: "End the War on Drugs"
Agree. As a propertarian, I think it a true statement that human beings are self-owners. If one is a self-owner, then one has the right to take drugs. Furthermore, drug sellers have the right to sell drugs to drug buyers. The War on Drugs is therefore, in its most simplest terms, unjust.
Demand #10: "End carceral punishment"
Agree. In a propertarian society, there would be no taxes, and therefore no resources for incarcerating large numbers of people. Perhaps there would be jails where tortfeasors would be temporarily incarcerated during their trials, but long term incarceration---who would pay for that? And can incarceration be justified? I think not.
Sentencing should be based on one of two basic principles: retribution or restitution. In the latter case, a tortfeasor could be justly enslaved to the extent necessary (and limited by proportionality) to pay back the victim for the tangible damages inflicted. While enslavement might (but might not) include living in a secure facility, the expenses should be paid out of the tortfeasor's resources, and not by a taxpayer who had no relationship to the tort.
***
To my surprise, I agreed outright with six of the Demands, disagreed with three, and could not decide on one because it raised the question of who is entitled to control public property, which I claim is not resolvable by logical analysis and therefore no conclusion can be justified.
In all cases, justice could be enhanced to a greater or lesser degree by moving the legal system in a propertarian direction.
