Sure, the state isn’t great at managing society, but surely they keep the peace, right?
Question 30 in Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded
This question is from Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded, available in paperback, PDF, and Kindle.
It’s helpful to understand what is meant by “keep the peace.” This phrase has become a rather meaningless idiom. We used to call our judges “justices of the peace” and our law enforcement officers “peace officers.” Supporters of law enforcement often (and, in our view, mistakenly) associate Matthew 5:9 (“blessed are the peacemakers”) with law enforcement officers. But it’s a contradiction to attribute “peacekeeper” to people who regularly initiate force and violence upon others.
If the state exists to keep the peace, then they sure aren’t doing a very good job of it! Criminal justice reform is a regular campaign issue. On the one hand, there are problems with the administrative side: police brutality, no-knock raids, corrupt or careless judges, etc. On the other hand, there are problems with the effectiveness of the policies: high recidivism rates, mandatory minimums, overcrowding and rising cost of prisons, etc.
How much peace we enjoy today is really due to market forces and not because of (or in spite of) government policies?
There are a couple of ways we can conceive of civil governance as “keeping the peace.” One classic metaphor is the “night watchman.” Another is a “referee.” Either way, the peacekeeping role of civil governance necessitates the impartiality of the peacekeeper in a given dispute. Historically, the difficulty has always been holding the peacekeeper accountable when disputes arise involving them. This is part of the ongoing dialogue between libertarian anarchists and libertarian minarchists (see Question 32). The aim of both, however, is that civil governance is only successful in “keeping the peace” when it’s properly and effectively limited.