32 ms·

A lot of cops make a ton of money, doubly so outside of big cities. In a New Jersey coastal town where my parents live the cops start at $85k/yr. They never see

by sgk284 11y ago

A lot of cops make a ton of money, doubly so outside of big cities. In a New Jersey coastal town where my parents live the cops start at $85k/yr. They never see any action. A few years back two of them saw a dead body and took months of paid leave because they were traumatized. Ultimately we just need to give them all body cameras and dismiss anything they say or do that isn't recorded.

lifeisstillgood 11y ago
Then why have a specialised privileged set of people held to a higher standard. Why not just slap body cameras on everyone and say "if you see a robbery, go round and ask some questions, we'll review the tapes later" Police (and others) are given special privileges but expected to act to a higher standard than the rest of us. Quite a lot of them do. It's like accountants and lawyers and doctors. Taking a random sample of doctors and a random sample of, say, HN readers, the doctors would be ... Better.
- jMyles 11y ago
  > Then why have a specialised privileged set of people held to a higher standard. I know you are being facetious here, but in the internet age, I think this is an increasingly compelling question.
  - jschwartzi 11y ago
    What you're suggesting could be the start of anarchy, which is the absence of rulers but not necessarily of rules. If it were possible for anyone to gather evidence of a violation of a rule, then why have a specialist class? In the same vein, if it were possible to gain consent for a rule without a specialist class, then why have a government? The only problem with the elimination of the specialists is that we then must take over their responsibility to act justly. I often wonder if our society is capable of that yet.
    - lifeisstillgood 11y ago
      Rules but no rulers. I like the sound of it.
- robbiep 11y ago
  Hi, I'm curious as to what you mean as 'better'. Act to a higher moral threshold? Can be relied upon to render assistance?
  - lifeisstillgood 11y ago
    Higher moral threshold. I set a peculiarly low bar :-)

by sgk284 11y ago

lifeisstillgood 11y ago

Then why have a specialised privileged set of people held to a higher standard. Why not just slap body cameras on everyone and say "if you see a robbery, go round and ask some questions, we'll review the tapes later" Police (and others) are given special privileges but expected to act to a higher standard than the rest of us. Quite a lot of them do. It's like accountants and lawyers and doctors. Taking a random sample of doctors and a random sample of, say, HN readers, the doctors would be ... Better.

jMyles 11y ago
> Then why have a specialised privileged set of people held to a higher standard. I know you are being facetious here, but in the internet age, I think this is an increasingly compelling question.
- jschwartzi 11y ago
  What you're suggesting could be the start of anarchy, which is the absence of rulers but not necessarily of rules. If it were possible for anyone to gather evidence of a violation of a rule, then why have a specialist class? In the same vein, if it were possible to gain consent for a rule without a specialist class, then why have a government? The only problem with the elimination of the specialists is that we then must take over their responsibility to act justly. I often wonder if our society is capable of that yet.
  - lifeisstillgood 11y ago
    Rules but no rulers. I like the sound of it.
robbiep 11y ago
Hi, I'm curious as to what you mean as 'better'. Act to a higher moral threshold? Can be relied upon to render assistance?
- lifeisstillgood 11y ago
  Higher moral threshold. I set a peculiarly low bar :-)