Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Ripster42]

I mean it does, in that it illustrates why the institution of police specifically is problematic on a basic level; because they protect private property, not the public welfare.

Which is quite different from law enforcement. I mean it's a certain kind of law enforcement in the same way that amputating your hand is kind of a cure for dermatitis on your fingers.

Your argument is that police (which I'm equating to law enforcement) didn't exist for most of human history, and society survived fine. Law enforcement has existed for, AFAIK, almost all of human history.

[Elegiac]

Your argument is that police (which I'm equating to law enforcement) didn't exist for most of human history, and society survived fine. Law enforcement has existed for, AFAIK, almost all of human history.

Cool, and as pointed out by multiple people police are a type of law enforcement but not all law enforcement involves police. So this is just a function of you espousing a false premise.

[NineSpine]

Your argument is that police (which I'm equating to law enforcement) didn't exist for most of human history, and society survived fine. Law enforcement has existed for, AFAIK, almost all of human history.

Then you are just playing definition games and creating a straw man. If someone says “we need an alternative to the police” and you just decide for them that by police they mean law enforcement, what are you achieving? Nothing. You are just building a straw man to beat up.

[Ripster42]

Do you think military law enforcement, where an armed soldier is on every corner, is the same as policing?

Do you think feudal arrangements between lords and peasants are the same as policing?

Your refusal to accept the nuance here demonstrates a real part of the problem. This kind of anti-intellectualism does not make your position look good.

This isn't really an explanation. Here's how I see both police and what I'll call "historical military law enforcement": interested parties hiring people to protect life and property. Our modern incarnation of law enforcement is a giant leap ahead of "historical military law enforcement" as they're at least ostensibly there for the public at large instead of just those interested parties, but that doesn't mean law enforcement didn't exist. If you really want to go back to "historical military law enforcement" go take a proverbial long walk off a short pier.

Remember the context within which my statement was made:

Police, like capitalism, have existed for a fraction of human history and yet we're told that society would crumble into the dust without either. For reasons.

[Themius]

Which is exactly why police unions aren't viewed as worker friendly. Because even today they remain 'guards' for the ruling classes.

Exactly how they didn’t realise they walked themselves into that hole I have no clue.

[NineSpine]

This isn't really an explanation. Here's how I see both police and what I'll call "historical military law enforcement": interested parties hiring people to protect life and property. Our modern incarnation of law enforcement is a giant leap ahead of "historical military law enforcement" as they're at least ostensibly there for the public at large instead of just those interested parties, but that doesn't mean law enforcement didn't exist. If you really want to go back to "historical military law enforcement" go take a proverbial long walk off a short pier.

Remember the context within which my statement was made:

Again, your continued insistence that since YOU only think of police When you think of law enforcement you should interpret everyone else as being that reductive and ignorant is not a compelling argument. You are just making excuses for strawmanning.

I don’t know what this nonsense about “historical military law enforcement” is. Many parts of the world are under military law enforcement right this very minute. What’s historical is the feudal system, although similar systems remain in place in some lesser developed regions, and that had nothing to do with the military. Once again, this reductive bullshit is just excuses to make straw men rather than engage with the substance

- - - Updated - - -

This is like if I said “chocolate ice cream is the only kind of ice cream, so when someone tells me they like ice cream I should assume they mean chocolate.” It’s bizarre at this point.

[kail]

It’s amazing how many people think “Maybe every issue under the sun doesn’t need to be addressed by calling men with guns to come use violence to resolve things?” is a radical stance. what’s sad is that they think that they are the ones who support “freedom”.

Which is what "defunding" the police calls for, reallocating resources to social services and community improvements. Some want to completely abolish the police, which I would call a radical stance.

Reforming the police is already a popular opinion.

[Felya]

I don’t know what this nonsense about “historical military law enforcement” is. Many parts of the world are under military law enforcement right this very minute. What’s historical is the feudal system, although similar systems remain in place in some lesser developed regions, and that had nothing to do with the military. Once again, this reductive bullshit is just excuses to make straw men rather than engage with the substance

How did they maintain the serfs paying taxes?

[Ripster42]

Again, your continued insistence that since YOU only think of police When you think of law enforcement you should interpret everyone else as being that reductive and ignorant is not a compelling argument. You are just making excuses for strawmanning.

I don’t know what this nonsense about “historical military law enforcement” is. Many parts of the world are under military law enforcement right this very minute. What’s historical is the feudal system, although similar systems remain in place in some lesser developed regions, and that had nothing to do with the military. Once again, this reductive bullshit is just excuses to make straw men rather than engage with the substance

Okay, what are some options that are better than police for enforcement of laws? Realize, I'm not talking about all the shit police have to do now (like mental health checks) that should be way outside their concern and left to other parties (while I dislike the term, defund the police, I fully support the message behind the slogan).

Do you think military law enforcement, where an armed soldier is on every corner, is the same as policing?

Do you think feudal arrangements between lords and peasants are the same as policing?

I'd consider both of those historical military law enforcement. You know, where what constitutes the military also performs a law enforcement fucntion.

[NineSpine]

How did they maintain the serfs paying taxes?

Depends on the era and country but the most common arrangement would be enforced by the lord the serf lives under. Governments would very rarely get involved at that low of a level. Most countries didn’t have taxes assessed in the common people during the time frame in question though. Taxes were primarily on trade and land.

[Felya]

Depends on the era and country but the most common arrangement would be enforced by the lord the serf lives under. Governments would very rarely get involved at that low of a level. Most countries didn’t have taxes assessed in the common people during the time frame in question though. Taxes were primarily on trade and land.

Uhm... the bold is a contradiction... The lord is the government...

the serf states... “fuck off, this is the land I worked on and my family lived on for generations”... what does the lord do?

[NineSpine]

Okay, what are some options that are better than police for enforcement of laws? Realize, I'm not talking about all the shit police have to do now (like mental health checks) that should be way outside their concern and left to other parties (while I dislike the term, defund the police, I fully support the message behind the slogan).

It depends on the law in question. For example, I think we can eradicate most of the purpose of traffic police with cameras. The vast majority of simple civil obedience laws, like laws against loitering, could be enforced by social workers or community organizations best.

[Ripster42]

Exactly how they didn’t realise they walked themselves into that hole I have no clue.

Let me know what hole.

[NineSpine]

Uhm... the bold is a contradiction... The lord is the government...

the serf states... “fuck off, this is the land I worked on and my family lived on for generations”... what does the lord do?

No, that’s not how it worked. The government is the Kings apparatus and authority. The lord does not have absolute authority over his land. The king always supersedes him.

Unless you are using a very colloquial and vague definition of “government”, rendering this meaningless.

[Felya]

No, that’s not how it worked. The government is the Kings apparatus and authority. The lord does not have absolute authority over his land. The king always supersedes him.

Yes, the lord is assigned by the king and reports to him. You switching jurisdictions, doesn’t make the lords declares authority any less. I’m using lord, because you chose that level of feudalism...

Unless you are using a very colloquial and vague definition of “government”, rendering this meaningless.

Nope... government, as in those that govern. Do you think slavery and serfdom are synonymous?

Edit: oh, a way you might understand... Just because you think chocolate government is your favorite government, doesn’t invalidate feudalism, being a form of government.

[NineSpine]

Yes, the lord is assigned by the king and reports to him. You switching jurisdictions, doesn’t make the lords declares authority any less. I’m using lord, because you chose that level of feudalism...



Nope... government, as in those that govern. Do you think slavery and serfdom are synonymous?

By your logic the master governs his slave so he is the government. If your intent is to water down the definition of government to the point that it is meaningless, congrats you win. Are we done wasting time now?

[Ripster42]

It depends on the law in question. For example, I think we can eradicate most of the purpose of traffic police with cameras. The vast majority of simple civil obedience laws, like laws against loitering, could be enforced by social workers or community organizations best.

So we'd still want police for things like murders?

As far as traffic goes, I think you're going to have massive privacy concerns. I already do with the amount of cameras we have now.

If some someone with no policing power had told me to stop loitering when I was a teen, I'd have told them to fuck off.

Also, 'community organizations' have a history of burning witches. While witch burning is hyperbole in modern day, false "convictions" based on prejudice or personal malice would be even less accountable with those than police, so no thanks.

Again, I'm entirely in favor of reducing police funding to fund community wellness projects (housing/healthcare/job training/social workers) that are better at reducing the majority of crime, but having no police does not seem realistic.

[Felya]

By your logic the master governs his slave so he is the government. If your intent is to water down the definition of government to the point that it is meaningless, congrats you win. Are we done wasting time now?

Yes, a master governs the slave. I’m not defining government as anything beyond the ability to govern. You have yet to present a narrower definition, just scuffing. If you are done, be done... I don’t give a shit... I know I’m right, it’s not up for debate.

[NineSpine]

So we'd still want police for things like murders?

As far as traffic goes, I think you're going to have massive privacy concerns. I already do with the amount of cameras we have now.

If some someone with no policing power had told me to stop loitering when I was a teen, I'd have told them to fuck off.

Also, 'community organizations' have a history of burning witches. While witch burning is hyperbole in modern day, false "convictions" based on prejudice or personal malice would be even less accountable with those than police, so no thanks.

Again, I'm entirely in favor of reducing police funding to fund community wellness projects (housing/healthcare/job training/social workers) that are better at reducing the majority of crime, but having no police does not seem realistic.

The cameras are already there. Every tollbooth logs you. Police clocking you catch your license plate number. There are cameras almost traffic routes for a variety of reasons.

The question is not whether police will EVER be needed for these situations. The question is whether it is necessary for police to be the primary mode of enforcement. Do we really need police to pull everyone over who is going over the speed limit, when the camera catches the license plate? No, but it makes sense for the police to pull over someone doing 40 over the speed limit.

Similarly, do we really need police to come deal with homeless people hanging around or should we send social workers to try to bring them somewhere safe? Will the police need to be called if a homeless person is being violent? Of course, but that’s not most situations.

And even after we fix this, we still have the problem that the police are ultimately violent enforcement of the capitalist class interests.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, a master governs the slave. I’m not defining government as anything beyond the ability to govern. You have yet to present a narrower definition, just scuffing. If you are done, be done... I don’t give a shit... I know I’m right, it’s not up for debate.

Alright, then theses are pointless word games. If you think that when someone talks about the government it is valuable to go “ACTUALLY parents are governments too because they govern their kids”... um ok. Good on you buddy, you really brought a lot of value to the conversation.

[Easo]

I love how so many went into semantics about what exactly police means. Really that hard to admit that there has almost always been law enforcement, it was just called various different names?

Why is it a radical idea to fire people that are breaking the law and/or not doing the job they were hired to do?

Because firing the entire million strong force is a radical idea.
It also, again, implies that they all are guilty and that means we will gonna go another round of that discussion, so I wont even go further into this.