The root of the problem is that government police are funded by coercion. In a free market setting, in order to stay in business the police would have an incentive to actually provide a service valued by the community paying them. Government police are monopolized and guaranteed to be funded no matter what they do because payment is extracted by force. Nobody on earth can accurately tell you what the value of a government police officer job is worth. Nobody can accurately tell you what their wage should be, nobody can accurately tell you how many police officers should be employed, nobody can tell you whether or not the job should even exist in the first place. It's all done by central planners instead of the market. We all agree that most police aren't corrupt, but we all recognize that they are capable of being corrupted because they have a monopoly on force. The monopolization of force is the whole problem with police. Everybody agrees that it's morally wrong to initiate force on another person. So why should police be able to initiate force on me if I didn't first initiate force on anybody else? The only time force is ever justified is when it's done in self-defense, which by definition isn't initiating force at all. 50% of inmates are in jail for victimless crimes. This means that they never initiated force on another person nor their property. So that means that 50% of arrests (probably more because most victimless crimes don't require jailing) are done immorally. So what is the job of a police officer if not to immorally initiate force on peaceful people? If the job of a police officer was to "protect and serve", why would they need a monopoly on force to do so? Wouldn't everybody adore police and admire them for their service to the community if they in fact did "protect and serve" said community? The reality is that the job of a government police officer is to be the enforcer to a central authority. To enforce the "laws" of such a central authorities. These laws enforced by police are opinions of individuals in such a central authority and are completely arbitrary. These opinions are not only arbitrary, but are bias towards special interest groups that benefit only said special interest group at the behest of the common individual. Ask yourself, why should your individual opinion be overshadowed by the powers that be opinion? The answer to this question is simply that your individual opinion doesn't matter because a group of other individuals have arbitrarily granted themselves a monopoly on force against you.