Where defense guards a community against threats from outside, enforcement guards people against being coerced by one another inside it. The argument's first claim is that most of that work happens before any encounter: the untreated illness, the poverty, the lost options that push people toward harm are where coercion actually starts, so a community that funds those upstream leaves its police far less to handle. Its second claim is about the encounter itself. An officer is there to protect people's rights (including the rights of the very person being stopped) and a person can only make a good decision if they have a moment to think. Tactics built for combat, used as the everyday posture for a traffic stop or a welfare check, strip that moment away and so defeat the thing enforcement exists to do. The point is not against police; it is that enforcement should do what its own purpose requires.

The political community requires internal protection against coercion within its own perimeter. Defense protects against external coercion; enforcement protects against internal coercion. The two domains share the protective register but address different threat-sources, and the framework's account of each derives from a different upstream stretch of the chapter.

Enforcement derives from [§8.4](<8.4 Reasoning.md>) (Reasoning) and [§8.9](<8.9 Will.md>) (Will), specifically the agency analysis those sections establish, combined with [§8.12](<8.12 Morality.md>) (Morality). The agency derivation establishes that freedom of will is constituted by the analysis of possibility-space, and that analysis-depth scales with the time available between a choice arising and the choice being required. From this follows the framework's distinctive account of enforcement: an institution designed to preserve the agency of those it encounters, not to compress that agency toward zero through the threat-display escalation conventional tactical doctrine treats as default.

The conventional articulation locates enforcement at the reactive-punitive register: police respond after harm, arrest after offense, deter through the threat of consequence. The framework articulates the same institution at the upstream-prevention register: enforcement exists to prevent the conditions and de-escalate the moments where coercion within the political community would otherwise materialize. The legitimacy of any encounter rests on its preservation of the agency the encounter is supposed to protect. This is the validity-redemption-of-facticity logic Habermas develops in *Between Facts and Norms* (1992/1996) applied at encounter-level: the coercive facticity of law is legitimate only when redeemable through the discursive justification the affected community can endorse, ratified continuously through the recognition mechanism ([§9.3](<9.3 Representation.md>)). The symmetric question (when citizens may legitimately resist enforcement that has failed its derived purpose) is the civil-disobedience question Habermas develops at the result register ('Civil Disobedience: Litmus Test for the Democratic Constitutional State' 1985), developed downstream at [§9.13](<9.13 Justice.md>). The Inversion runs the same direction as the rest of Chapter 9. The protective tradition reached for safety understood as the absence of coercion and located the institution at the reactive-punitive register; the framework articulates the same commitment at the level where coercion is prevented before it becomes the kind of event reactive force has to manage.

Consider concretely a 911 call reporting that a man on a downtown sidewalk is shouting at no one, sometimes lunging at passers-by, clearly in psychiatric crisis. Under the conventional dispatch architecture, two patrol officers respond with sidearms holstered. They have minutes of de-escalation training, no clinical training, and a tactical playbook calibrated to compliance under threat. The escalation curve is short: if the man does not comply with verbal commands he cannot process, force is the next step, and if force does not subdue him, lethal force is on the table. Under a co-responder architecture, the same call routes a behavioral-health clinician with police backup; the clinician leads, the officers stay back, and the time-window for the man's possibility-space analysis is preserved. The same person, the same crisis, two outcomes (one a seventy-two-hour psychiatric hold, the other a body bag), turning entirely on which architecture answered the phone. The empirical record from CAHOOTS, Denver STAR, and similar programs runs the prediction the section derives. Co-responder architecture is *Integration without assimilation* at the institutional register: enforcement, clinical care, and crisis response (distinct institutional forms) coordinated by recognizing each one's structural function rather than collapsing them into a single agency's tactical playbook.

*The upstream-prevention thesis.* Most coercion-events within the political community are downstream of failures the argument already addresses in earlier domains: untreated mental illness and substance disorder ([§9.10](<9.10 Healthcare.md>)), poverty and material precarity ([§9.7](<9.7 Economy.md>) and [§9.10](<9.10 Healthcare.md>) jointly), educational gaps and under-formation of capacity ([§9.9](<9.9 Education.md>)), and the breakdown of the public channels that let disputes resolve before they become physical ([§9.1](<9.1 Rights.md>), [§9.3](<9.3 Representation.md>), [§9.4](<9.4 Information.md>)). Adequate upstream investment in those domains drains the upstream sources of internal coercion. Enforcement therefore depends on those investments as preconditions, not as separate concerns; it handles the residual extreme cases that even adequate prevention cannot eliminate. Where the upstream domains are systematically under-invested, enforcement is overloaded, and the overload itself produces the dysfunctions the empirical record displays.

*The rights-protection inversion.* Enforcement is for the third parties whose rights the encounter is protecting, not a crackdown on the enforcement-target. A speed-limit stop is not punitive toward the speeder; it is protective of every other driver's right to navigate the road without elevated risk. The person being stopped is not the institution's adversary. The institution exists to change behavior that is harming other people who share the same civic conditions. The same orientation appears in [§9.10](<9.10 Healthcare.md>) Healthcare (the patient is not a cost center; healthcare exists for the patient) and [§9.9](<9.9 Education.md>) Education (the student is not a credential-sorting target; education exists to develop the student). The enforcement-target remains a participant in the political community throughout the encounter; the institution is not licensed to treat them as an adversary even when their behavior has produced the encounter. This is the relational-equality test (Anderson, 'What Is the Point of Equality?' 1999) applied at the enforcement encounter: standing as a participant in the political community is what the encounter must structurally preserve. The [§9.1](<9.1 Rights.md>) 'Government work discharges the obligation' result names the foundational form this section inherits: enforcement is one of the ways the political community discharges the [§8.12](<8.12 Morality.md>) obligation, not a function each citizen separately discharges in private capacity.

*De-escalation as Chapter-8-derived structural commitment.* The [§8.4](<8.4 Reasoning.md>) and [§8.9](<8.9 Will.md>) agency derivation establishes that freedom of will is constituted by the analysis of possibility-space: reasoning navigates the modal field ([§8.3](<8.3 Knowledge.md>)), will acts through it at the depth that field permits ([§8.9](<8.9 Will.md>)), and that analysis-depth scales with the time available between a choice arising and the choice being required. Apply this to an enforcement encounter. The encounter is, by its nature, a moment where the citizen's agency is at stake: the citizen is about to make decisions (comply, explain, move, speak) under conditions where the wrong decision can cost them their liberty or their life. If enforcement's purpose is rights-protection, the institution must preserve the very condition that makes agency-exercise possible: the time-window for possibility-space analysis. *De-escalation is therefore the time-preservation requirement applied to coercion-prevention encounters.* It is not a soft-policy preference imported from training literature; it is derived from the same agency analysis Chapter 8 already runs.

Cast in the modal terms the de-escalation argument already uses, the section's two prevention registers are one mechanism worked at two horizons. De-escalation preserves the citizen's possibility-space *within* the encounter; upstream investment works *before* it, on the conditions that necessitate the coercion-event in the first place. Most survival-driven coercion is necessary only *conditionally* (necessitated given deprivation, not in itself) so draining the condition does not make such acts impossible; it removes what forces them, leaving the bare possibility untouched and mitigating the actuality. Where deprivation was the sole thing necessitating the act, draining it quiets the act; where the act is overdetermined, draining one condition thins it without closing it, which is why even adequate prevention leaves the residue the institution still has to handle.

This gives the framework a sharp structural critique of conventional tactical doctrine: specifically, of its application as default posture for routine encounters rather than as the response reserved for imminent threats. Rapid escalation is appropriate where an active threat is already underway: a drawn weapon, an in-progress assault, an immediate danger to life. In those cases time-compression on the threatening party is the operative requirement, and the encounter has already left the agency-preservation register. The critique targets the import of those tactics as default doctrine. The "officer safety justifies rapid escalation" frame, applied to traffic stops, welfare checks, mental-health calls, and the broad mass of routine encounters that constitute most of enforcement's actual work, inverts the institution's derived purpose. Rapid escalation in those contexts collapses the citizen's analysis-time toward zero: precisely the agency-destruction the institution exists to prevent. The standard doctrine is upside-down relative to what enforcement is structurally for across the encounters where it is most often deployed. Demilitarization follows on the same logic: military-derived equipment and tactics are designed for enemy engagement where time-compression is correct, not for citizen engagement where time-preservation is constitutive. The boundary with [§9.11](<9.11 Defense.md>) Defense is a boundary because the two domains face different threat-sources and require opposite encounter-architectures.

*The framework engages the enforcement-tradition objections from four directions.* Four counter-traditions are developed in full at [§9.12.1](<9.12.1 What is Disputed.md>): the police-abolitionist tradition (Davis, *Are Prisons Obsolete?* 2003; Gilmore, *Golden Gulag* 2007; Kaba, *We Do This 'Til We Free Us* 2021; Vitale, *The End of Policing* 2017; Critical Resistance), the broken-windows / order-maintenance tradition (Wilson and Kelling 1982; Bratton's NYPD record; Mac Donald; Weisburd hot-spots policing), the libertarian minimal-state tradition (Nozick 1974; Rothbard 1973; the private-security and arbitration literature), and the anarchist tradition (Kropotkin, *Mutual Aid* 1902; Bakunin, *God and the State* 1882; Rocker, *Anarcho-Syndicalism* 1938; Ward, *Anarchy in Action* 1973; Graeber, *Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology* 2004). The framework grants the central concession in each case. The abolitionist diagnostic on the institutional-historical record is granted in full: the racialized origins, the persistence of extraction patterns across reform cycles, and the budget-crowding-out empirical record are real and constitute legitimate evidence that incremental reform has reliably failed. The broken-windows diagnostic on visibility and presence is granted at the descriptive level: institutional presence does affect coercion-event probability, and adequate-presence architectures (foot-patrol, community-station presence, support-configured school-resource-officer protocols) are framework-compatible. The libertarian minimal-state diagnostic on extractive-institution risk is granted as the empirical-political-economy concern it is, and the framework's [§9.7](<9.7 Economy.md>) structural-extraction critique applies symmetrically to revenue-generating policing patterns (fine-collection, civil-asset-forfeiture, the public-safety-as-jobs-program pattern). The anarchist diagnostic on hierarchical capture is granted as the sharpest version of the same concern: any standing authority, public or privately contracted, accumulates the capacity to serve itself rather than the protection it was constituted to deliver, and *Integration without assimilation* (§9) already concedes that the institutional form discharging [§9.1](<9.1 Rights.md>)'s protective obligation need not be state-shaped at all — federated, council-organized, or mutual-aid-coordinated architectures satisfy the derivation exactly as a police department would, provided the underlying requirement is still met. The deeper anarchist worry is not merely conceded and outweighed but answered independently by mechanisms the framework derives for unrelated reasons: the recognition mechanism ([§9.3](<9.3 Representation.md>)) subjects any institution's coercive facticity to continuous, contestable ratification rather than one-time consent, so capture that survives one generation's endorsement does not survive the next's; the [§9.7](<9.7 Economy.md>) structural-extraction critique precludes revenue-capture by the discharging institution from the very citizens it serves, on the same logic that precludes private economic extraction; and the institutional-form pluralism just granted means no arrangement may claim a fixed shape as the price of protection. What the state is, on this reading, is not the fixed apparatus anarchism is right to distrust by default — it is whatever institution currently discharges the floor, held to the same account anarchism demands by mechanisms built for reasons independent of the anarchist critique but answering it nonetheless. Where the framework parts is on the load-bearing claim of each: the [§9.1](<9.1 Rights.md>) derivation requires that internal-coercion protection be discharged by some institution rather than eliminated; the [§8.4](<8.4 Reasoning.md>)- and [§8.9](<8.9 Will.md>)-derived agency-preservation requirement runs against assertive-enforcement default doctrine, and the broken-windows empirical record (disorder-reduction evidence mixed; stop-and-frisk evidence on agency-collapse strong) supports the parting from this tradition on mechanism; private-security accountability and arbitration-mechanism access for parties without resources both undermine the privatization conclusion; and the anarchist tradition's own reliance on federated councils, mandated and recallable delegates, and communal assemblies to adjudicate disputes and sanction non-cooperators is itself the institution the [§9.2](<9.2 Belonging.md>) derivation requires, exercised in a decentralized form rather than absent — the Mutual Sustenance result (§9) that subjects cannot escape dependence on shared conditions while they live within them means whatever body ultimately makes a non-cooperating member's continued access to those conditions conditional is doing enforcement's structural work, whether it calls itself a police department or a general assembly. The framework converges with abolitionism on the historical record and the inadequacy of incremental reform, with broken-windows on the importance of adequate presence, with libertarian minimal-state critique on the extractive-capture risk of state-monopoly institutions, and with the anarchist critique on the danger any standing authority poses of serving itself before those it was constituted to protect; it parts from each on the institutional-form conclusion, and from anarchism specifically on the claim that the protective function can be discharged by no institution at all rather than by a decentralized one.

*Rights-protection extends to private-power enforcement.* The framework's rights-protection orientation applies wherever standing relations within the political community involve coercive authority, not only at the state-enforcement register. Workplace discipline, landlord-tenant power, and debt-collection are themselves enforcement-architectures in the structural sense: moments where one party's authority over another's conditions is being exercised, and where the agency-preservation requirement the [§8.4](<8.4 Reasoning.md>) and [§8.9](<8.9 Will.md>) derivation establishes runs the same way (developed at [§9.7](<9.7 Economy.md>) for the workplace-authority register specifically). The Private Government register Anderson develops (*Private Government* 2017) is precisely the case: at-will employment, NDA-enforced silence, and debt-collection's compounding-coercive structure are private-power enforcement arrangements where the agency-preservation requirement applies symmetrically. The state-enforcement focus of the [§9.12](<9.12 Enforcement.md>) main derivation is methodological (the political community's most acute coercion-prevention apparatus is the place to derive the requirement at its strongest), not exhaustive.

What remains open. Dispatch protocol, training architecture, and specific equipment-and-tactics policy remain design questions. The fixed constraints are upstream prevention, rights-protection orientation, and preservation of the time a person needs to think during an encounter. Where multiple designs satisfy those constraints, the choice remains open.


- [9.12.1 What is Disputed](<9.12.1 What is Disputed.md>)
- [9.12.2 What is Required](<9.12.2 What is Required.md>)
- [9.12.3 What is Predicted](<9.12.3 What is Predicted.md>)
- [9.12.4 What is Confirmed](<9.12.4 What is Confirmed.md>)
- [9.12.5 What is Concluded](<9.12.5 What is Concluded.md>)


---

← [9.11.5 What is Concluded](<9.11.5 What is Concluded.md>) | [9.12.1 What is Disputed](<9.12.1 What is Disputed.md>) →
