3 ms·
What about the murders that police commit? I'm calling at least some police murderers, which isn't a contestable point. Your question also assumes the point th
by wonder_er 4y ago
What about the murders that police commit? I'm calling at least some police murderers, which isn't a contestable point.
Your question also assumes the point that police are useful for dealing with murderers, which is not a point I'll cede uncontested.
Policing, because it's founded on the initiation of violence, is immoral.
Mature people can solve problems without resorting to violence. We can solve the problem of others being willing to do violence to us, more easily without a police agency, than with a police agency.
If you or I wanted the freedom to do harm to others, the best route for both of us would be to go join a local police force because they have immunity for the crimes that they commit against citizens.
- leereeves 4y agoPolice don't have immunity for the crimes they commit against citizens. Prosecutions are rare, but not unheard of. And the problem isn't how to solve disputes between people who can solve problems without resorting to violence. The problem is how to deal with people who can't, or don't want to. Someone has to use violence to resist violence. If you can think of a better way to govern that group, great, but just proposing to eliminate them entirely is a child's dream. Even the book you mentioned acknowledges that. In the chapter Individual Security in a Stateless Society, it says: > The inhabitants of the anarchic society would most likely wish to develop systematic institutions ... [that] serve the function that police serve in governmental systems.