4 ms·

> So it took about 3 days for this anarchist utopia to demonstrate exactly why police exist. Yes, but not current american police. What is demonstrated here is

> So it took about 3 days for this anarchist utopia to demonstrate exactly why police exist. Yes, but not current american police. What is demonstrated here is that unchecked power is bad, which is pretty close to what the american police currently seems to have, leading to crimes like the one that started the whole protest.

logicprog 6y ago
Well said. It's about checked power - abolishing police totally would just end up with them recreated again when the need arises, but without the proper infrastructure to control them. What we really need is a system of accountability and control over police. Police should be as accountable for their actions and mistakes as every other citizen (equality under the law!), or at least that's the idea. We can start by: - getting rid of police unions that hide information and do stuff like have police be judged by three of their peers, one picked by the accused, and prevent police from getting fired. - get rid of qualified immunity And so on.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  > without the proper infrastructure to control them. Many, myself included, would argue that they're basically out of control right now. Just look at the sequence of events that unfolds almost to the letter after every unjustified police killing. At best the outcome is the cop involved resigns and quietly goes to work for another police department a few months down the line or retires with full benefits. Defund of course means a million things to a million people but a lot of what I'm hearing is about moving the armed police response to the minority of roles where it's needed. The amount of time you need an armed officer is a tiny fraction of the times they're there and they're not trained for the vast majority of the actual work they do. Under this defund is about taking the glut of resources allocated to cops and moving it to people better trained to deal with the kind of mental health, mediation, etc tasks that take up the bulk of police's actual time.
  - logicprog 6y ago
    I agree with you wholeheartedly on both points. I even said in my OG comment: "What we really need is a system of accountability and control over police." I know the police aren't well-controlled right now, that's why I was laying out a few ways to improve it! (: I would say, though, that our US police are more controlled than what's going on in the CHAZ, however slightly in some ways.
gonational 6y ago
> unchecked power is bad Are you pro individual gun ownership? The second amendment exists in the US Constitution, first and foremost to balance the power between a populous and would-be tyrants.
- non-entity 6y ago
  Funny though how the usual fervant supporters seem to instead cheering tyrant like action.
  - gonational 6y ago
    Not everyone. Just like vocal anarchists make the left look bad, the freedom-loving libertarian side is marred by the vocal authoritarians; esp when they feel threatened.
- redisman 6y ago
  Maybe a 100 years ago. The government has invested high tens to low hundreds of trillions of our dollars into the military at this point. Guerrilla warfare on peoples own land is almost impossible to snuff out but the people also can't possibly "win".
  - gonational 6y ago
    ... but the tyrants also can’t possibly “win”. There is little incentive to attempt tyranny when the result can be predicted so easily. Also, don’t underestimate the power of 100 million people wielding guns. The world has yet to ever witness a force 1/10th as great and well-armed as the American populous.
  - kortex 6y ago
    The purpose of an armed populace isn't to "win" tactically, it's to win strategically and psychologically. It's basically like a poison pill clause, you want to make totalitarian takeover so unpallatable that every victory is a pyrrhic one. You want to force the occupiers to have to choose between killing your own countrymen or defecting, setting up more of a resistance. All the while, you shine light on all the atrocities. With a sparsely-armed populace, it's easy for the occupying force to roll through without much conflict or challenging decisions. Winning occurs through attrition of the occupiers, which, unlike Vietnam, can't just "back out".

logicprog 6y ago

Well said. It's about checked power - abolishing police totally would just end up with them recreated again when the need arises, but without the proper infrastructure to control them. What we really need is a system of accountability and control over police. Police should be as accountable for their actions and mistakes as every other citizen (equality under the law!), or at least that's the idea. We can start by: - getting rid of police unions that hide information and do stuff like have police be judged by three of their peers, one picked by the accused, and prevent police from getting fired. - get rid of qualified immunity And so on.

rtkwe 6y ago
> without the proper infrastructure to control them. Many, myself included, would argue that they're basically out of control right now. Just look at the sequence of events that unfolds almost to the letter after every unjustified police killing. At best the outcome is the cop involved resigns and quietly goes to work for another police department a few months down the line or retires with full benefits. Defund of course means a million things to a million people but a lot of what I'm hearing is about moving the armed police response to the minority of roles where it's needed. The amount of time you need an armed officer is a tiny fraction of the times they're there and they're not trained for the vast majority of the actual work they do. Under this defund is about taking the glut of resources allocated to cops and moving it to people better trained to deal with the kind of mental health, mediation, etc tasks that take up the bulk of police's actual time.
- logicprog 6y ago
  I agree with you wholeheartedly on both points. I even said in my OG comment: "What we really need is a system of accountability and control over police." I know the police aren't well-controlled right now, that's why I was laying out a few ways to improve it! (: I would say, though, that our US police are more controlled than what's going on in the CHAZ, however slightly in some ways.

gonational 6y ago

> unchecked power is bad Are you pro individual gun ownership? The second amendment exists in the US Constitution, first and foremost to balance the power between a populous and would-be tyrants.

non-entity 6y ago
Funny though how the usual fervant supporters seem to instead cheering tyrant like action.
- gonational 6y ago
  Not everyone. Just like vocal anarchists make the left look bad, the freedom-loving libertarian side is marred by the vocal authoritarians; esp when they feel threatened.
redisman 6y ago
Maybe a 100 years ago. The government has invested high tens to low hundreds of trillions of our dollars into the military at this point. Guerrilla warfare on peoples own land is almost impossible to snuff out but the people also can't possibly "win".
- gonational 6y ago
  ... but the tyrants also can’t possibly “win”. There is little incentive to attempt tyranny when the result can be predicted so easily. Also, don’t underestimate the power of 100 million people wielding guns. The world has yet to ever witness a force 1/10th as great and well-armed as the American populous.
- kortex 6y ago
  The purpose of an armed populace isn't to "win" tactically, it's to win strategically and psychologically. It's basically like a poison pill clause, you want to make totalitarian takeover so unpallatable that every victory is a pyrrhic one. You want to force the occupiers to have to choose between killing your own countrymen or defecting, setting up more of a resistance. All the while, you shine light on all the atrocities. With a sparsely-armed populace, it's easy for the occupying force to roll through without much conflict or challenging decisions. Winning occurs through attrition of the occupiers, which, unlike Vietnam, can't just "back out".