How does defunding the police related to the concept of guns or butter?

The concept of guns and butter generally refers to the logic in allocating budgets for the Government in terms of whether to donate to defence spending or social programs.

It has been argued that the police get such massive funding because they deal with too many effects of society's problem and this money should instead be used to target the root of the problems instead of their effects.

The police are a law enforcement arm and their primary method of enforcing orders is to use force. While this might work for certain criminals, it will not work on criminals who are engaging in crime out of desperation.

It is argued therefore that instead of investing in guns (police), invest more in butter (social programs) that will tackle the root of the problem and remove the reason for having to fund the police so massively in the first place.

For instance, if more money went into drug rehabilitation, there would be less drug addicts on the streets which would translate to less addicts engaging in crime to get some drugs. If the Government invested in housing for the homeless, more homeless people would have less of an incentive to steal etc.

Essentially, target to root through butter and you will not have to spend on guns.

worcester v. georgia, legal case in which the u.s. supreme court on march 3, 1832, held (5–1) that the states did not have the right to impose regulations on native american land. andrew jackson refused to enforce the ruling, the decision form the basis for most subsequent indian law in the united states.