8 ms·

the coercive function in society is prone to abuse but that does not imply that all personnel engaged in the coercive function are complicit in what amounts to

the coercive function in society is prone to abuse but that does not imply that all personnel engaged in the coercive function are complicit in what amounts to a criminal conspiracy. > Cop!=Programmer, cops integrate into one social function while programmers integrate onto many. The correct mapping would be public employee <=> programmer, or Raytheon weapons engineer <=> Soldier, for example. It really is the social function that is core to this argument. The social function that cops represent is the enforcement of laws and many of these laws are of a net benefit to society. it is an error to reduce the law enforcement function to brutality and expropriation when there are plenty of violent, malevolent, and larcenous individuals who are not police and still engage in socially undesirable behaviors.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Sure, I'd agree with you, if the cops only implemented the social function of enforcement. But they don't, they implement the social function of intimidation and violence writ large, as well as the social function of taking care of people in sensitive situation. This is a huge issue. Cops should do enforcement and enforcement only, and limit as much as possible their engagement in all other social functions. Finally, joining the police force means willingly taking on the social function of violence and intimidation for the state, as well as forces you to engage in corrupt behaviour against the interests of society, the so called thin blue line. As long as these social functions and social constructs permeate law enforcement it will be a problematic institution, and once they aren't anymore it will be a tremendously helpful and appreciated institution.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  intimidating people into following the law and enforcing the law with violence are part of the social function of enforcement. You can't arrest people who don't want to be arrested without the threat of violence and you can't deter them from engaging in criminal acts that benefit them without giving them a credible threat of enforcement. the social function of handling sensitive situations is also inseparable to a large degree, and we already have social workers who handle this function when it can be separated. frequently police are called to a domestic violence report that where there has been no dv, or a neighbor trouble report where the neighbor causing the alleged trouble is mentally ill. there isn't always a way to know, and dispatching social workers to these incidents in the past has resulted in the social worker being a victim of violence. > Finally, joining the police force means willingly taking on the social function of violence and intimidation for the state Indeed, and among the individuals who find this prospect attractive are some of the people who are also potential organized crime participants. Those people aren't going away, the best you can do is to channel their aggressive tendencies into a force for social good that is constrained by norms and incentivized by the prospect of a steady income. > as well as forces you to engage in corrupt behaviour against the interests of society, the so called thin blue line. I'm not convinced that this behavior would go away if you changed their uniforms. Organized crime has a long tradition and predates the beneficent social order we have fought to replace it with. > As long as these social functions and social constructs permeate law enforcement it will be a problematic institution, and once they aren't anymore it will be a tremendously helpful and appreciated institution. respectfully, I suggest you articulate a way to enforce the law in a way that doesn't involve violence or the threat of violence. I would be very interested in such a social order if it were possible.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    >intimidating people into following the law and enforcing the law with violence are part of the social function of enforcement. You can't arrest people who don't want to be arrested without the threat of violence and you can't deter them from engaging in criminal acts that benefit them without giving them a credible threat of enforcement. You're making a huge leap. The social function of violence is very distinct from the social function of enforcing norms, even if the second sometimes requires the first. The police's function is not limited to enforcement of norms, the police are used to impose the violence of the state even when there is no norm to enforce. You can easily come up with examples yourself. Same for intimidation, the state intimidates people in much broader ways than what is strictly necessary to enforce laws. The way to make the police not an inherently detrimental institution is to give the pure function of state violence (social violence = state violence assuming the state's monopoly of violence here, which we do because we are talking about social functions) to another organism, and then the police would only exert violence as little as possible and purely in order to enforce norms. >the social function of handling sensitive situations is also inseparable to a large degree, and we already have social workers who handle this function when it can be separated. frequently police are called to a domestic violence report that where there has been no dv, or a neighbor trouble report where the neighbor causing the alleged trouble is mentally ill. there isn't always a way to know, and dispatching social workers to these incidents in the past has resulted in the social worker being a victim of violence. The obvious solution is to put whoever fulfills the function of the social worker in control of someone who fulfills the function of enforcement or violence, depending on the type of situation (enforcement for a domestic violence call, social violence for, say, a suicide that might turn bad). As long as the other is fully subordinate to the person who fulfills the function of the social worker then the risk is minimized, and this is indeed what the people saying "defund the police" are asking for. Also, while social workers are sometimes victims of violence, sending police first empirically leads to much, much more violence, on both sides. >Indeed, and among the individuals who find this prospect attractive are some of the people who are also potential organized crime participants. Those people aren't going away, the best you can do is to channel their aggressive tendencies into a force for social good that is constrained by norms and incentivized by the prospect of a steady income. Absolutely not, that is a very bad idea for two reasons. First, there are much better ways to legitimately channel aggressive people that might join organized crime than the police force. Indeed, there are two avenues to do so - either you put them in a very structured, organized emplacement where there is an absolutely clear and unbreakable subordination of them to someone that does not exhibit such characteristics, and then allow them to use their aggressive tendencies for good, and the only institutions that fits that role are organizations like the National Guard, Military, and so on. The Police does not do so because there is no clear subordination of the enlisted/officer type, and what's more the penalties for overstepping the boundaries are incredibly light in comparison to those in the military. The other solution is to channel them into something where there is absolutely no power over other people and very limited opportunities for violence. Manual labour positions do this quite well. Putting those people in the police is a bad idea at every level and much less preferable than both options above. >'m not convinced that this behavior would go away if you changed their uniforms. Organized crime has a long tradition and predates the beneficent social order we have fought to replace it with. There is no such problem among enlisted members of the military. Organized crime should not operate with the hegemony of violence. >respectfully, I suggest you articulate a way to enforce the law in a way that doesn't involve violence or the threat of violence. I would be very interested in such a social order if it were possible. There is no need to do, those that enforce the law should not be those that generally express the violence of the state. Their use of violence should be limited to the least amount possible at all to enforce norms. Again, the social function of violence is distinct from that of enforcing norms, even if sometimes norms must be enforced using violence, the general function fo state violence goes far beyond just that.

sudosysgen 6y ago

Sure, I'd agree with you, if the cops only implemented the social function of enforcement. But they don't, they implement the social function of intimidation and violence writ large, as well as the social function of taking care of people in sensitive situation. This is a huge issue. Cops should do enforcement and enforcement only, and limit as much as possible their engagement in all other social functions. Finally, joining the police force means willingly taking on the social function of violence and intimidation for the state, as well as forces you to engage in corrupt behaviour against the interests of society, the so called thin blue line. As long as these social functions and social constructs permeate law enforcement it will be a problematic institution, and once they aren't anymore it will be a tremendously helpful and appreciated institution.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
intimidating people into following the law and enforcing the law with violence are part of the social function of enforcement. You can't arrest people who don't want to be arrested without the threat of violence and you can't deter them from engaging in criminal acts that benefit them without giving them a credible threat of enforcement. the social function of handling sensitive situations is also inseparable to a large degree, and we already have social workers who handle this function when it can be separated. frequently police are called to a domestic violence report that where there has been no dv, or a neighbor trouble report where the neighbor causing the alleged trouble is mentally ill. there isn't always a way to know, and dispatching social workers to these incidents in the past has resulted in the social worker being a victim of violence. > Finally, joining the police force means willingly taking on the social function of violence and intimidation for the state Indeed, and among the individuals who find this prospect attractive are some of the people who are also potential organized crime participants. Those people aren't going away, the best you can do is to channel their aggressive tendencies into a force for social good that is constrained by norms and incentivized by the prospect of a steady income. > as well as forces you to engage in corrupt behaviour against the interests of society, the so called thin blue line. I'm not convinced that this behavior would go away if you changed their uniforms. Organized crime has a long tradition and predates the beneficent social order we have fought to replace it with. > As long as these social functions and social constructs permeate law enforcement it will be a problematic institution, and once they aren't anymore it will be a tremendously helpful and appreciated institution. respectfully, I suggest you articulate a way to enforce the law in a way that doesn't involve violence or the threat of violence. I would be very interested in such a social order if it were possible.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  >intimidating people into following the law and enforcing the law with violence are part of the social function of enforcement. You can't arrest people who don't want to be arrested without the threat of violence and you can't deter them from engaging in criminal acts that benefit them without giving them a credible threat of enforcement. You're making a huge leap. The social function of violence is very distinct from the social function of enforcing norms, even if the second sometimes requires the first. The police's function is not limited to enforcement of norms, the police are used to impose the violence of the state even when there is no norm to enforce. You can easily come up with examples yourself. Same for intimidation, the state intimidates people in much broader ways than what is strictly necessary to enforce laws. The way to make the police not an inherently detrimental institution is to give the pure function of state violence (social violence = state violence assuming the state's monopoly of violence here, which we do because we are talking about social functions) to another organism, and then the police would only exert violence as little as possible and purely in order to enforce norms. >the social function of handling sensitive situations is also inseparable to a large degree, and we already have social workers who handle this function when it can be separated. frequently police are called to a domestic violence report that where there has been no dv, or a neighbor trouble report where the neighbor causing the alleged trouble is mentally ill. there isn't always a way to know, and dispatching social workers to these incidents in the past has resulted in the social worker being a victim of violence. The obvious solution is to put whoever fulfills the function of the social worker in control of someone who fulfills the function of enforcement or violence, depending on the type of situation (enforcement for a domestic violence call, social violence for, say, a suicide that might turn bad). As long as the other is fully subordinate to the person who fulfills the function of the social worker then the risk is minimized, and this is indeed what the people saying "defund the police" are asking for. Also, while social workers are sometimes victims of violence, sending police first empirically leads to much, much more violence, on both sides. >Indeed, and among the individuals who find this prospect attractive are some of the people who are also potential organized crime participants. Those people aren't going away, the best you can do is to channel their aggressive tendencies into a force for social good that is constrained by norms and incentivized by the prospect of a steady income. Absolutely not, that is a very bad idea for two reasons. First, there are much better ways to legitimately channel aggressive people that might join organized crime than the police force. Indeed, there are two avenues to do so - either you put them in a very structured, organized emplacement where there is an absolutely clear and unbreakable subordination of them to someone that does not exhibit such characteristics, and then allow them to use their aggressive tendencies for good, and the only institutions that fits that role are organizations like the National Guard, Military, and so on. The Police does not do so because there is no clear subordination of the enlisted/officer type, and what's more the penalties for overstepping the boundaries are incredibly light in comparison to those in the military. The other solution is to channel them into something where there is absolutely no power over other people and very limited opportunities for violence. Manual labour positions do this quite well. Putting those people in the police is a bad idea at every level and much less preferable than both options above. >'m not convinced that this behavior would go away if you changed their uniforms. Organized crime has a long tradition and predates the beneficent social order we have fought to replace it with. There is no such problem among enlisted members of the military. Organized crime should not operate with the hegemony of violence. >respectfully, I suggest you articulate a way to enforce the law in a way that doesn't involve violence or the threat of violence. I would be very interested in such a social order if it were possible. There is no need to do, those that enforce the law should not be those that generally express the violence of the state. Their use of violence should be limited to the least amount possible at all to enforce norms. Again, the social function of violence is distinct from that of enforcing norms, even if sometimes norms must be enforced using violence, the general function fo state violence goes far beyond just that.