4 ms·

If you don't think that the rule of law requires violence, you are deeply, deeply naive. Nonviolent people are almost immediately terrorized by violent people a

If you don't think that the rule of law requires violence, you are deeply, deeply naive. Nonviolent people are almost immediately terrorized by violent people and have always been throughout history. Even if you are capable of creating a peaceful society where no violent crimes ever occur, the threat of invasion from an outside society that desires your land for resources or living space still exists.

maxbond 4y ago
If someone threatens you with violence, you are obliged to defend yourself. The police often respond to completely nonviolent incidents, bringing guns into the situation, and then people die. That's entirely needless. In Uvalde, the police arrived, armed and prepared, to a violent situation, and were unable to organize an effective response. School shootings should be a slam dunk to justify a militarized police, it's the literal "bad guy with a gun." But time and again they fail to respond effectively. Violence is a one trick pony. Hurting people is the only thing it does well.
- quacked 4y ago
  This is a separate discussion from whether or not there ought to be a paramilitary force. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see they modern police forces are full of under-trained thugs and brutes, who in many cases cause much more harm than they prevent. This does not prove that a police force shouldn't exist at all any more that a corrupt business proves that businesses shouldn't exist at all. > Violence is a one trick pony. Hurting people is the only thing it does well. Yes, and when your community is faced with organized violence perpetrated by people residing in your community, what is your non-violent solution? The only way to prevent further violence once it has occurred is by tracking people who committed the violence and detaining, reeducating, exiling, or killing them.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    I'd encourage you to consider what communities should do about an organized, violent police force which has and will continue to perpetrate violence against them, while claiming their purpose was to protect them. I think dispanding them and creating different services in their place is what follow naturally from your list of potential solutions.
    - quacked 4y ago
      If you disband and replace the police with different services, one of the services will be armed and capable of responding to violence with greater and more organized violence, which will be a recursive creation of "the police". You're not arguing for the removal of "the police" from society, you're arguing for reform.
      - maxbond 4y ago
        I'm in favor of whatever course of action leads to a satisfying result. If reform were the ticket, that'd be fine. It happens to be the case that it isn't. What I'm saying is that our conception of what the police is, what they do, and what they are for is wrong. This organization needs to be abolished; it's purpose is to inflict violence, in all manner of places, for any infraction the officer cares to enforce (while ignoring those they don't care to). A police force does not create safety or justice. It creates danger for those at the fringes of society, fails to stop bad actors (and often exacerbates the factors that lead to such bad actors), and creates innumerable injustices. In replacing it, we'll have to address the thorny question of how to intervene in violent situations. It's true that we will need to organize something to address this. You're saying this will necessarily be a recapitulation of a police force; that's certainly a danger, but not a necessity. A police force is a standing army which has broad authority over the populace. I am proposing we can change those parameters; they may not need to be standing, their authority and mandate can be very narrow.

maxbond 4y ago

If someone threatens you with violence, you are obliged to defend yourself. The police often respond to completely nonviolent incidents, bringing guns into the situation, and then people die. That's entirely needless. In Uvalde, the police arrived, armed and prepared, to a violent situation, and were unable to organize an effective response. School shootings should be a slam dunk to justify a militarized police, it's the literal "bad guy with a gun." But time and again they fail to respond effectively. Violence is a one trick pony. Hurting people is the only thing it does well.

quacked 4y ago
This is a separate discussion from whether or not there ought to be a paramilitary force. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see they modern police forces are full of under-trained thugs and brutes, who in many cases cause much more harm than they prevent. This does not prove that a police force shouldn't exist at all any more that a corrupt business proves that businesses shouldn't exist at all. > Violence is a one trick pony. Hurting people is the only thing it does well. Yes, and when your community is faced with organized violence perpetrated by people residing in your community, what is your non-violent solution? The only way to prevent further violence once it has occurred is by tracking people who committed the violence and detaining, reeducating, exiling, or killing them.
- maxbond 4y ago
  I'd encourage you to consider what communities should do about an organized, violent police force which has and will continue to perpetrate violence against them, while claiming their purpose was to protect them. I think dispanding them and creating different services in their place is what follow naturally from your list of potential solutions.
  - quacked 4y ago
    If you disband and replace the police with different services, one of the services will be armed and capable of responding to violence with greater and more organized violence, which will be a recursive creation of "the police". You're not arguing for the removal of "the police" from society, you're arguing for reform.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      I'm in favor of whatever course of action leads to a satisfying result. If reform were the ticket, that'd be fine. It happens to be the case that it isn't. What I'm saying is that our conception of what the police is, what they do, and what they are for is wrong. This organization needs to be abolished; it's purpose is to inflict violence, in all manner of places, for any infraction the officer cares to enforce (while ignoring those they don't care to). A police force does not create safety or justice. It creates danger for those at the fringes of society, fails to stop bad actors (and often exacerbates the factors that lead to such bad actors), and creates innumerable injustices. In replacing it, we'll have to address the thorny question of how to intervene in violent situations. It's true that we will need to organize something to address this. You're saying this will necessarily be a recapitulation of a police force; that's certainly a danger, but not a necessity. A police force is a standing army which has broad authority over the populace. I am proposing we can change those parameters; they may not need to be standing, their authority and mandate can be very narrow.