A state needs a police force with sufficient power and might to protect the interests of the state. The primary interest of the state should be the common good, and this means that the people of the state are to be protected from harm. Yet the way to protect the people from harm seems to be through the threat of violence before harm is done, and the use of violence once it has been done. If this is the case, then we already suggest that it can be morally acceptable to engage in and practice harm upon others, and if this is the case, then why should the state protect people from harm?
If the police force is used to protect the people from each other, what is to protect the people from the police force if the police force is out of control? Normally it is said that this responsibility lies with some political authority, such as the mayor of the city. Yet then who is to watch this political authority and make sure they are not out of control – is it not the people? But then, if the police are meant to watch over the people, with political authorities are the ones who are to watch over the police, and the people of the state are the ones who are to watch over the political authorities, what is one to do if this system of checks and balances gets unhinged? Who is it that really has the authority and ability to fix the situation?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In