3 ms·

The police should exist to enforce law and justice. This prevents mob rule. You are correct that police do not currently serve this purpose.

by mulmen 3y ago

jakelazaroff 3y ago
The police do prevent "mob rule" today. They use violence to keep a minority of wealthy people atop a social hierarchy. When the "mob" below acts up, they violently quash them. Like, think of any mass social protest movement. Who is the primary "boots-on-the-ground" opposition? It is always the police. It will always be the police. That's what they're there for.
- postalrat 3y ago
  Do you think that it's actually possible to avoid having a group a people that feel they've been cheated somehow?
  - jakelazaroff 3y ago
    No, but I don’t really see what that has to do with anything.
- mulmen 3y ago
  I’m describing an ideal future state. You’re describing the suboptimal current state. This is why I emphasized “should”. In my city the police deliberately avoid enforcing basic traffic laws and petty crime in a bid to get more funding. As that continues more and more of my neighbors arm themselves. At some point the scales tip and the people take matters into their own hands. Police can abuse their power in the short term but it can’t continue forever.
  - jakelazaroff 3y ago
    I actually suspect you’re describing what I’d consider a suboptimal future state, but it’s hard to tell because most of these words are pretty vague. Like, what exactly is “mob rule”? Why am I supposed to fear it? Why is it worse than today’s system of rule by a powerful unaccountable minority? Why is it per se good for the police to enforce laws and fight crime? Those are both social constructs that can target anyone we want them to. 60 years ago, they would have prevented me from marrying my wife; 90 years ago, they would have prevented me from fleeing genocide. What happens in your ideal future state if the rich and powerful refuse to change unjust laws? If people rise up against oppression, what happens?
pineaux 3y ago
Actually, that is not the reason why they should exist. That is the story you are told. But this story has never been true, the propaganda is just a bit more effective these days. I mean. Look at: Paw Patrol, Miami Vice, Tokyo Vice, the Wire, Criminal Minds, Chicago PD, Southland, Bosch, Law and Order: all of them, law and Order: all of them, CSI: all of them, Luther, The Shield, Reno 911, etc. I mean this list is just from the top of my head. We are being indoctrinated in our image of the police. Some rotten apples are shown, but in the end they are always The Good Guys.
- mulmen 3y ago
  Uh. Cops are certainly not always portrayed in media as the good guys. The Wire and Reno 911 aren’t even positive portrayals. On top of that media portrayals are irrelevant in this context. The alternative to a state monopoly on violence is mob rule. You can call that state entity whatever you want, police, militia, whatever. But some regulated construct needs to exist. If you can’t separate that concept from the current model of policing it’s unlikely we can have an interesting conversation.
nrdxp 3y ago
Well, if you are talking about the United States and the supposed Supreme Law of the Land that nobody seems to be too well educated on nowadays, actually it is the job of local militia to defend and enforce civil order You can not have a free society without a populace taking responsibility for their own. There is a reason the slogan "freedom isn't free", was a big thing in America til just a generation or two ago. The second you start delegating things like safety to the gov you've lost. Just look at modern America, a giant portion of folks cannot survive without gov assistance now, and look where that got us. How can you oppose a corrupt gov if you cannot even survive without it? Unless you are so brainwashed (as many still are) that you think that the total lack of privacy and agency in modern America is both good, and somehow fitting to the intent of the Constitution as written.
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  > actually it is the job of local militia to defend and enforce civil order Doesn't that encourage vigilanteism?
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  > Just look at modern America, a giant portion of folks cannot survive without gov assistance now Boomers are more than “a generation or two ago.”
- krapp 3y ago
  So you want to disband all police and leave police powers entirely in the hands of "local militias", which according to current definitions of the 2nd Amendment are (reading notes) literally any American with a gun? Like these jackasses[0]. You want to give these people the right to arbitrarily arrest, detain and kill because two centuries ago Thomas Jefferson saw the horrors of the French Revolution, got the biggest boner of his life and thought "how about that, but a whole country, all the time?" No thank you. I don't trust the cops but I trust my fellow armed Americans even less. At least the police, ostensibly, have a system they have to abide by other than a piece of parchment saying "everyone gets as many guns as they want, no questions asked." What you're advocating is essentially gang warfare. Also, "freedom isn't free" became popular as a meme from South Park making fun of the wave of jingoistic, patriotic BS songs after 9/11. It costs a buck o'five, by the way. [0]https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184

The police should exist to enforce law and justice. This prevents mob rule. You are correct that police do not currently serve this purpose.

by mulmen 3y ago

The police should exist to enforce law and justice. This prevents mob rule. You are correct that police do not currently serve this purpose.

jakelazaroff 3y ago

The police do prevent "mob rule" today. They use violence to keep a minority of wealthy people atop a social hierarchy. When the "mob" below acts up, they violently quash them. Like, think of any mass social protest movement. Who is the primary "boots-on-the-ground" opposition? It is always the police. It will always be the police. That's what they're there for.

postalrat 3y ago
Do you think that it's actually possible to avoid having a group a people that feel they've been cheated somehow?
- jakelazaroff 3y ago
  No, but I don’t really see what that has to do with anything.
mulmen 3y ago
I’m describing an ideal future state. You’re describing the suboptimal current state. This is why I emphasized “should”. In my city the police deliberately avoid enforcing basic traffic laws and petty crime in a bid to get more funding. As that continues more and more of my neighbors arm themselves. At some point the scales tip and the people take matters into their own hands. Police can abuse their power in the short term but it can’t continue forever.
- jakelazaroff 3y ago
  I actually suspect you’re describing what I’d consider a suboptimal future state, but it’s hard to tell because most of these words are pretty vague. Like, what exactly is “mob rule”? Why am I supposed to fear it? Why is it worse than today’s system of rule by a powerful unaccountable minority? Why is it per se good for the police to enforce laws and fight crime? Those are both social constructs that can target anyone we want them to. 60 years ago, they would have prevented me from marrying my wife; 90 years ago, they would have prevented me from fleeing genocide. What happens in your ideal future state if the rich and powerful refuse to change unjust laws? If people rise up against oppression, what happens?

pineaux 3y ago

Actually, that is not the reason why they should exist. That is the story you are told. But this story has never been true, the propaganda is just a bit more effective these days. I mean. Look at: Paw Patrol, Miami Vice, Tokyo Vice, the Wire, Criminal Minds, Chicago PD, Southland, Bosch, Law and Order: all of them, law and Order: all of them, CSI: all of them, Luther, The Shield, Reno 911, etc. I mean this list is just from the top of my head. We are being indoctrinated in our image of the police. Some rotten apples are shown, but in the end they are always The Good Guys.

mulmen 3y ago
Uh. Cops are certainly not always portrayed in media as the good guys. The Wire and Reno 911 aren’t even positive portrayals. On top of that media portrayals are irrelevant in this context. The alternative to a state monopoly on violence is mob rule. You can call that state entity whatever you want, police, militia, whatever. But some regulated construct needs to exist. If you can’t separate that concept from the current model of policing it’s unlikely we can have an interesting conversation.

nrdxp 3y ago

Well, if you are talking about the United States and the supposed Supreme Law of the Land that nobody seems to be too well educated on nowadays, actually it is the job of local militia to defend and enforce civil order You can not have a free society without a populace taking responsibility for their own. There is a reason the slogan "freedom isn't free", was a big thing in America til just a generation or two ago. The second you start delegating things like safety to the gov you've lost. Just look at modern America, a giant portion of folks cannot survive without gov assistance now, and look where that got us. How can you oppose a corrupt gov if you cannot even survive without it? Unless you are so brainwashed (as many still are) that you think that the total lack of privacy and agency in modern America is both good, and somehow fitting to the intent of the Constitution as written.

Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
> actually it is the job of local militia to defend and enforce civil order Doesn't that encourage vigilanteism?
rootusrootus 3y ago
> Just look at modern America, a giant portion of folks cannot survive without gov assistance now Boomers are more than “a generation or two ago.”
krapp 3y ago
So you want to disband all police and leave police powers entirely in the hands of "local militias", which according to current definitions of the 2nd Amendment are (reading notes) literally any American with a gun? Like these jackasses[0]. You want to give these people the right to arbitrarily arrest, detain and kill because two centuries ago Thomas Jefferson saw the horrors of the French Revolution, got the biggest boner of his life and thought "how about that, but a whole country, all the time?" No thank you. I don't trust the cops but I trust my fellow armed Americans even less. At least the police, ostensibly, have a system they have to abide by other than a piece of parchment saying "everyone gets as many guns as they want, no questions asked." What you're advocating is essentially gang warfare. Also, "freedom isn't free" became popular as a meme from South Park making fun of the wave of jingoistic, patriotic BS songs after 9/11. It costs a buck o'five, by the way. [0]https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184