Enforcement's role (preventing coercive collapse of agency within the political community), brought together with structural-extraction logic and the [§8.4](<8.4 Reasoning.md>) and [§8.9](<8.9 Will.md>) agency derivation, generates predictions about how enforcement systems perform.

*First.* Departments structured around reactive-punitive doctrine produce more use-of-force incidents per encounter than departments structured around prevention-and-de-escalation. Doctrinal orientation, not officer character, drives outcomes at the encounter level. Where rapid-escalation tactics are the trained default, the agency-compression those tactics produce yields use-of-force incidents proportional to the volume of encounters; where time-preservation tactics are the trained default, the rate falls.

*Second.* Communities with adequate upstream support-condition investment have lower per-capita policing demand than communities without. Where mental-health, housing, employment, education, and community-discourse infrastructures are adequate, communities generate fewer of the situations that produce enforcement encounters in the first place. The prediction runs at the population scale, not the individual scale; specific encounters remain underdetermined by aggregate support-condition adequacy.

*Third.* Routing mental-health and substance-related crises through criminalization rather than civilian first-response produces worse aggregate outcomes than routing them through healthcare-domain institutions. This follows from [§9.10](<9.10 Healthcare.md>): mental-health and substance conditions are healthcare-domain conditions whatever their downstream behavioral manifestations, and the prevention-through-conditions thesis above runs in parallel. Civilian first-response services (mobile crisis teams, dispatch-redirection protocols, unarmed mental-health responders) outperform armed-police response on use-of-force incidents, resolution-without-arrest rates, subsequent treatment engagement, and per-capita cost where calls are appropriately triaged.

*Fourth.* Departments captured by police-union political power resist accountability reform proportional to that capture. Applied to enforcement political-economy, the structural-extraction account picks out union-driven protection of qualified-immunity regimes, contract-protected discipline-record-sealing, and arbitration architectures that systematically reverse departmental terminations. The pattern matches what other captured industries display. Accountability-reform success tracks the prior weakening of those structural-extraction arrangements, not changes in officer attitudes or training in isolation.

*Fifth.* Domestic militarization of policing tracks defense-industry political-economy. Military-derived equipment, tactics, and training transfer into domestic policing whenever the defense industry has overcapacity and is searching for domestic-deployment outlets. The prediction couples [§9.12](<9.12 Enforcement.md>) to [§9.11](<9.11 Defense.md>) Defense at a load-bearing boundary: the two domains face different threat-sources and require opposite encounter-architectures, so defense-equipment-into-policing produces the wrong encounter-architecture for the citizen-engagement domain.

*Sixth.* For-profit policing configurations and revenue-generation policing produce structural-extraction patterns at the citizen-encounter interface. Where enforcement budgets are funded substantially by fines, asset-forfeiture, or court fees, the arrangement produces extraction-from-vulnerability at the encounter interface, on the same logic that for-profit healthcare extracts at the constitutive-vulnerability interface. The pattern runs at jurisdictional scale, not at individual-officer scale.

*Seventh.* Time-pressure tactical doctrine produces worse outcomes than time-preservation tactical doctrine across the encounter metrics named here. Following the [§8.4](<8.4 Reasoning.md>) and [§8.9](<8.9 Will.md>) agency derivation, tactics designed to compress citizen analysis-time toward zero (rapid command-compliance demands, threat-display escalation, weapon-presentation as default rather than as residual) produce more use-of-force incidents, more wrongful-arrest events, more death-during-encounter outcomes, and lower compliance-without-force rates than tactics designed to preserve citizen analysis-time. The mechanism is structural, not contingent on officer character.

*Eighth.* Political communities that adequately invest in upstream domains and structure enforcement around the rights-protection inversion outperform arrangements that do not across the relevant encounter and outcome metrics. This packages the prior seven. Where upstream support-condition investment is adequate, where doctrine is rights-protective rather than crackdown-oriented, where civilian first-response is structurally available, where capture is constrained, and where encounter-architecture preserves time, the political community delivers lower violent-crime rates, lower use-of-force rates, higher resolution-without-arrest rates, higher community-trust metrics, and lower per-capita policing cost than arrangements failing on those margins.

The predictions stated in this subsection are made under engagement with the contested enforcement-tradition opposition objections [§9.12.1](<9.12.1 What is Disputed.md>) names at premise: police-abolitionism (Davis, *Are Prisons Obsolete?* 2003; Gilmore, *Golden Gulag* 2007; Kaba, *We Do This 'Til We Free Us* 2021), the broken-windows / order-maintenance tradition (Wilson and Kelling 1982; Bratton's NYPD record; Mac Donald), libertarian minimal-state on policing (Nozick, *Anarchy, State, and Utopia* 1974; Rothbard, *For a New Liberty* 1973), and the anarchist tradition (Kropotkin, *Mutual Aid* 1902; Bakunin, *God and the State* 1882; Graeber, *Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology* 2004). Those traditions are engaged at section length in [§9.12.1](<9.12.1 What is Disputed.md>), and the predictions stated here apply under that engagement.


---

← [9.12.2 What is Required](<9.12.2 What is Required.md>) | [9.12.4 What is Confirmed](<9.12.4 What is Confirmed.md>) →
