I feel like this sounds like a great idea until you end up with a bunch of unregulated militias run by the George Zimmermans of the world in every red state with a government who doesn’t give a shit, but I’d absolutely love to be proven wrong
Cops still have rules of engagement. Whenever you think “this could not get any worse” it could actually get worse. A lot worse.
We could have large gangs of white men conducting pogroms, moving house to house shooting anyone they found who wasn’t white. They could be torching every house and creating wildfires that destroy large sections of the cities.
This is all the kinda stuff that happened in the past. Antisemitic pogroms in Europe in the 20th century and earlier, for example.
The fact that they commit less brazen violence than unregulated militias of the past doesn't change the fact that they are unregulated militias. How many times have you read about the bastards being punished for "excessive force" (read, cold blooded murder in broad daylight), then found that their "punishment" was a few months of admin leave and a new job in another precinct? Regulations don't exist unless they're enforced, and we have a wildly long public record of cops breaking the law followed by the legal system choosing not to enforce the law in those cases.
No, that’s not how it works. Regulations do exist even when they’re not enforced 100% of the time. Otherwise no regulation would ever exist since no regulation has a perfect track record of enforcement.
The other side of the coin is community norms. Most laws that regulate behaviour need to operate within a space of norms. Look at prohibition on alcohol for example. It was WIDELY disregarded (at speakeasies for example) because it was a regulation that disregarded norms around alcohol consumption in the US. On the other hand, alcohol consumption is illegal in some Muslim countries and the law rarely needs to be enforced because norms against alcohol consumption are deeply embedded in Islamic beliefs.
The same can be said around regulation of police. Different police cultures exist in different countries. Police in countries other than the US vary quite a lot, and in some countries the police have very strict norms of professionalism and non-violent conflict resolution. Police in the US frequently have a warrior mentality and the literal belief that they are
... Show more...
No, that’s not how it works. Regulations do exist even when they’re not enforced 100% of the time. Otherwise no regulation would ever exist since no regulation has a perfect track record of enforcement.
The other side of the coin is community norms. Most laws that regulate behaviour need to operate within a space of norms. Look at prohibition on alcohol for example. It was WIDELY disregarded (at speakeasies for example) because it was a regulation that disregarded norms around alcohol consumption in the US. On the other hand, alcohol consumption is illegal in some Muslim countries and the law rarely needs to be enforced because norms against alcohol consumption are deeply embedded in Islamic beliefs.
The same can be said around regulation of police. Different police cultures exist in different countries. Police in countries other than the US vary quite a lot, and in some countries the police have very strict norms of professionalism and non-violent conflict resolution. Police in the US frequently have a warrior mentality and the literal belief that they are entering a war zone when they go to patrol in certain neighbourhoods. Is it any wonder that they don’t develop any bonds with those communities so that they don’t feel any reluctance to behave like violent thugs?
I'm not complaining about spotty enforcement of the law against American police, I'm complaining about things like qualified immunity or the thin blue line shit used to protect cops from consequences when they explicitly and clearly break the law. A regulation with less than perfect enforcement is still a regulation. A regulation with legal doctrine (QI) explicitly stating that it can be broken with no consequence however absolutely stops being a regulation.
I generally agree with the content of your second two paragraphs, but i do not see how they are relevant to discussion about whether the police can accurately be called an unregulated militia. Yes, law is subjective and generally defined by the mores of the society that follows it. "Cops don't have to follow the law and should be allowed to murder people with no consequences" is absolutely not part of the zeitgeist
"Cops don't have to follow the law and should be allowed to murder people with no consequences" is absolutely not part of the zeitgeist
Tough on crime politics continues to be very big in a lot of places where the worst police abuses occur. For every one of those stories where a cop seriously injured or killed someone unjustly, you can find people in that community cheering for, not protesting against, the police. The “thin blue line” and “blue lives matter” flags and bumper stickers are very popular and frequently displayed by people who are not cops themselves.
Qualified immunity came out of Pierson v. Ray (1967), a landmark case right in the middle of the civil rights movement. There are many people in the US who continue to believe that civil rights are a mistake and that the government should’ve cracked down on the civil rights movement much harder. Watch a movie like Dirty Harry (1971) if you want an example of popular reactionary sentiment towards civil rights. Rather being called a villain, C
... Show more...
"Cops don't have to follow the law and should be allowed to murder people with no consequences" is absolutely not part of the zeitgeist
Tough on crime politics continues to be very big in a lot of places where the worst police abuses occur. For every one of those stories where a cop seriously injured or killed someone unjustly, you can find people in that community cheering for, not protesting against, the police. The “thin blue line” and “blue lives matter” flags and bumper stickers are very popular and frequently displayed by people who are not cops themselves.
Qualified immunity came out of Pierson v. Ray (1967), a landmark case right in the middle of the civil rights movement. There are many people in the US who continue to believe that civil rights are a mistake and that the government should’ve cracked down on the civil rights movement much harder. Watch a movie like Dirty Harry (1971) if you want an example of popular reactionary sentiment towards civil rights. Rather being called a villain, Clint Eastwood’s character was seen as a hero defending American values against violent leftist thugs.
That all said, police are still regulated by use of force rules. Here’s a case from December 2024 where a Fort Worth Texas cop was fired for unjustified use of force.
That officer was "fired" for similar abuses from a different department in 2013. Eventually being reinstated AND given back pay before then moving to Fort Worth and doing it again. He received no punishment and it is very likely this case will resolve in a similar fashion. The police union is currently defending him, this will end up in arbitration just like when he was fired in Irving.
The police union is one of the worst unions in existence. You’ll get no argument from me on this one. They’re every bit as bad as the Catholic Church at shuffling bad apples around to different communities instead of ostracizing them completely.
Or the meth making bikers with the enormous pile of firearms decide they want to run the county. Jan 6 happened because one side was absolutely not afraid to use violence and another side wanted to play fair and by the rules.
Never underestimate the capacity of assholes to be assholes.
Communities organizing themselves into squads to handle criminals and undesirables is also how we ended up with the KKK. Also the kinds of people who volunteer for unpaid security work tend to be pretty conservative in my experience.
They aren't, they are pointing out self-organizing groups like this can be made into something good as well as something bad. That's kind of the whole point of government and regulations, to try to prevent that. Obviously that has failed in most cases, but it doesn't mean the goal itself is pointless.
If a society is a the point of calling for a substitute to police, then you are fucked. at that point you are just gonna build two armed factions which are illegitimate in each others eyes. thats how you get a civil war.
The police is supposed to be a standardized rules based version of this, where the whole force is subject to law and can be held accountable, because chances are that unless you're lucky or able to move, you'll have a less than ideal local community.
It's not exactly unusual for people to be either lazy or unethical.
You're almost lucky if they just reject your efforts to organize, the guys in your community could easily do like crooked cops and repurpose the group to do crimes like harassment, theft, extortion, assault, kidnapping, rape and murder together. Of course the first ones being more likely.
Some of you might prefer the targets they pick, though. Like beating a racist Asian grocer, threatening a woman 10 blocks away who cheated on one of the guys, and maybe kidnap and sodomize some dweeb none of you liked since high school. Shit like that.
American police probably has too many issues to be reformed without being completely rebuilt with fresh hires across the board and making new rules and procedures. All "cops" should be fired, all "cop" culture m
... Show more...
The police is supposed to be a standardized rules based version of this, where the whole force is subject to law and can be held accountable, because chances are that unless you're lucky or able to move, you'll have a less than ideal local community.
It's not exactly unusual for people to be either lazy or unethical.
You're almost lucky if they just reject your efforts to organize, the guys in your community could easily do like crooked cops and repurpose the group to do crimes like harassment, theft, extortion, assault, kidnapping, rape and murder together. Of course the first ones being more likely.
Some of you might prefer the targets they pick, though. Like beating a racist Asian grocer, threatening a woman 10 blocks away who cheated on one of the guys, and maybe kidnap and sodomize some dweeb none of you liked since high school. Shit like that.
American police probably has too many issues to be reformed without being completely rebuilt with fresh hires across the board and making new rules and procedures. All "cops" should be fired, all "cop" culture must be cleaned out and left to rot in shitty bars where old gangster cops will inevitably gather in the aftermath, where an actual new and accountable police force will likely arrest them and put them in prison for whatever fucked up shit they've just done.
Yes exactly, "Policing activity" will happen one way or another. It's the regulation, transparency, accountability that is used to weed out bad cops that is needed to make it beneficial to society.
As a minimum, how about frequent rotation and a sortition + selection system to staff the squads?
Imaginary example:
Two "cops" are needed for a term of 90 days (side note: in this hypothetical society, it could be that a cop is not a first responder but an investigator - first responders may be selected by proximity to the event and called up using some automated emergency messaging system). An investigator is allowed to request expert assistance from outside their department and often does.
At first, 10 candidates are sortitioned at random. Out of them, 3 refuse the job for various reasons, 7 go through instruction and pass evaluation. Out of them, 3 either step out during training or fail exams, 4 complete exams. Among them, another round of sortition occurs: 2 are selected at random, while 2 are paid compensation for study and assigned to reserve. If lottery chooses them again, they won't need to pass exams.
This might be possible to enhance with other tricks. If feedback shows that cops cannot be impartial near their home, then they don't work near the
... Show more...
As a minimum, how about frequent rotation and a sortition + selection system to staff the squads?
Imaginary example:
Two "cops" are needed for a term of 90 days (side note: in this hypothetical society, it could be that a cop is not a first responder but an investigator - first responders may be selected by proximity to the event and called up using some automated emergency messaging system). An investigator is allowed to request expert assistance from outside their department and often does.
At first, 10 candidates are sortitioned at random. Out of them, 3 refuse the job for various reasons, 7 go through instruction and pass evaluation. Out of them, 3 either step out during training or fail exams, 4 complete exams. Among them, another round of sortition occurs: 2 are selected at random, while 2 are paid compensation for study and assigned to reserve. If lottery chooses them again, they won't need to pass exams.
This might be possible to enhance with other tricks. If feedback shows that cops cannot be impartial near their home, then they don't work near their home. If however, feedback shows that they perform best near their home, then the opposite way.
The main goals this would aim to achieve:
ensure that corruption will not start
ensure that investigation is not biased (or that chances exist of bias being quickly exposed)
ensure that offices cannot be given by people in power to whom they prefer
ensure that competence is valued and unqualified bozos won't be appointed
So this doesn’t work for a variety if reasons. The biggest being stability. Investigator is a technical and important job, you need a certain level of IQ and EQ to perform the role effectively. No one with a good combination of intelligence and know how would wait around for 90 days for their job to reopen. You would immediately lose them to the private sector. Police retain people based on job security and home life stability, especially as you climb the ranks. Second, this does not account for when no qualified candidates are found. Police departments are often understaffed now for these roles. There’s also no greater command structure. If higher rolls have a similar system you are even less likely to find qualified candidates. It will eventually debase into the same two peopke running everytime and just becoming the full time investigators anyway. Something similar will happen with your consultants. Either every group will need the same small pool or they will just eventually be the go to corruptible person. On top of all this you still need beat cops or patrol officer... Show more...
So this doesn’t work for a variety if reasons. The biggest being stability. Investigator is a technical and important job, you need a certain level of IQ and EQ to perform the role effectively. No one with a good combination of intelligence and know how would wait around for 90 days for their job to reopen. You would immediately lose them to the private sector. Police retain people based on job security and home life stability, especially as you climb the ranks. Second, this does not account for when no qualified candidates are found. Police departments are often understaffed now for these roles. There’s also no greater command structure. If higher rolls have a similar system you are even less likely to find qualified candidates. It will eventually debase into the same two peopke running everytime and just becoming the full time investigators anyway. Something similar will happen with your consultants. Either every group will need the same small pool or they will just eventually be the go to corruptible person. On top of all this you still need beat cops or patrol officers, which despite their current reputation in America do provide valuable services to the community. A first responder sitting at home doesn’t help anyone one when seconds matter most.
Modern police forces are what we decided to do with the slave catchers and mercenaries for hire that would have started gangs if the government didn't put them to work.
So when it’s not state sponsored, it only sometimes turns into racists oppressing poor people and minorities, and you consider this worse than the current alternative?
You can't draw blood from a stone. If community self-organizing gets you the KKK, that community was fucked to begin with. The USA has always been extremely racist, it's a matter of to what extent we give the racist police a legal monopoly on violence and place them above the law. At least when they wear ghost outfits you don't have an illusion of reasonability.
Also note that the KKK never aimed to replace the police for the community the KKK came from, but rather to build upon police oppression of people outside the community. The two situations are not analogous, and if KKK members had to police their own community they would be much more gentle and constructive in their methods.
Don't take what i say in the wrong way but what is listed does not really work any better than police. And before i go further, I also live in a place where police is lazy corrupt and racist to some extent, but first 2 are also a result of the fact they are not paid well.
Teach everyone self defence - that is good in principle, but it is double edged sword - you are also possible training a future criminal, and it would most likely still be a net benefit
organise your local communities and do community patrols (I don't remember much about how it is done in wakanda, only saw the first movie and also a long time ago) - there are 2 possible ways - either we cycle through the population - then the quality of patrol would "vary" to put it gently, if we make a small subset of people who are nominated for the job - then you have made police again - they can still get corrupt
Handle conflict mediation without a racist incarceration system that doesn't work? - it is spoken in a self fulfulling prophecy way - it assumes (1) conflict mediation is always possible an
... Show more...
Don't take what i say in the wrong way but what is listed does not really work any better than police. And before i go further, I also live in a place where police is lazy corrupt and racist to some extent, but first 2 are also a result of the fact they are not paid well.
Teach everyone self defence - that is good in principle, but it is double edged sword - you are also possible training a future criminal, and it would most likely still be a net benefit
organise your local communities and do community patrols (I don't remember much about how it is done in wakanda, only saw the first movie and also a long time ago) - there are 2 possible ways - either we cycle through the population - then the quality of patrol would "vary" to put it gently, if we make a small subset of people who are nominated for the job - then you have made police again - they can still get corrupt
Handle conflict mediation without a racist incarceration system that doesn't work? - it is spoken in a self fulfulling prophecy way - it assumes (1) conflict mediation is always possible and (2) and you do not want a system which is racist. (2) is fine, but (1) is not easy. We do not a systematic framework (constitution) and people who understand it well. Not everyone can be put in burden of understanding the law (everyone should have basic understanding, but most people already do, but most real world crime is not that easy)
What is written, mostly works for a small community (of the size of a village (< 1000)). This may also justify living in smaller self sufficient communities, but this is not efficient (in sense of resource usage) - too many people would be constantly reinventing wheels. Also, the "quality" (read threat level) of criminal would vary from village to village, and if a criminal goes on village hopping rampage, these disconencted villages would be at a disdvantage, they can act like fediverse network - share the "post" with federating "communities" but if they are not federating with a community (either intentionally, or they have never come across yet) then the "post" would go unnoticed.
They were a group of black people who went around and did stuff for their local black communities. Specifically in this case, we're referring to how they would ride around and watch cops so that they wouldn't brutalize black community members. They also did food for kids and stuff like that. They got shut down by the FBI because they were feeding too many people (quite literally, the FBI admitted to it, look it up).
Most Americans also don't know about them. Its rather sad, cause as far as I understand, they were one of the most successful groups both from a communist and from an anti-racism perspective.
it assumes (1) conflict mediation is always possible and (2) and you do not want a system which is racist. (2) is fine, but (1) is not easy
1 is actually not as hard as people make it out to be, people just think 'mediation' and 'giving orders' are the same thing. I did care for developmentally disabled adults, and part of my training was in conflict mediation. I've also worked in a low-cost hotel that housed drug dealers, and preferred to de-escalate conflicts between tweakers myself instead of calling the cops. One of the huge problems with the US police forces is that they generally assume conflict mediation isn't going to work and jump straight to guns.
I also don't understand why it's not a political talking point that happy people don't commit crime to begin with. The US is allergic to taxes being used to increase happiness. Benefits keep getting shot down like, oh no, we can't have aid because people won't use it to better themselves, they're just going to stop stealing booze and start paying for it. Even their supposed downside is an actual improvement, I don't get it.
The entire system would need to change for this to work though - there ain't no way that in an unequal society such as ours where not everyone's needs are met (and crime essentially staying as high as it is today) community self-management would be sustainable.
Often crime is committed out of frustration (like violence born of inequality) or necessity (theft), so imagine being in a community in some larger city and having to deal with this every other day - I'd argue most people would just grow apathetic.
You're putting the cart before the horse. It's not that the entire system needs to change for this to work, it's that this working changes the entire system. Community self-management would quickly result in the redistribution (and hopeful removal) of the inequalities, possibly with help of guillotines. The primary job of the police is to prevent this redistribution.
Historically, pretty much every "thriving local culture" is the result of a downtrodden wretched hive of scum and villainy where self-organisation was more important than police during the time of flourishing. Broadway (and NYC in general), New Orleans, Amsterdam, most Italian and German cities' high points, London, Hong Kong, Osaka, etc.. It turns out that when people don't have enough, they will work together to get enough, and the benefits of that cooperation can be felt in that town for centuries. (Which is why gentrification is profitable - rich people exploit the commons of a flourishing lower class mutual aid network which persist in the design and culture of the space even when the lower class people are
... Show more...
You're putting the cart before the horse. It's not that the entire system needs to change for this to work, it's that this working changes the entire system. Community self-management would quickly result in the redistribution (and hopeful removal) of the inequalities, possibly with help of guillotines. The primary job of the police is to prevent this redistribution.
Historically, pretty much every "thriving local culture" is the result of a downtrodden wretched hive of scum and villainy where self-organisation was more important than police during the time of flourishing. Broadway (and NYC in general), New Orleans, Amsterdam, most Italian and German cities' high points, London, Hong Kong, Osaka, etc.. It turns out that when people don't have enough, they will work together to get enough, and the benefits of that cooperation can be felt in that town for centuries. (Which is why gentrification is profitable - rich people exploit the commons of a flourishing lower class mutual aid network which persist in the design and culture of the space even when the lower class people are gone).
That is, unless a violent organisation like the police or the CIA or a multinational corporation or an invading army forcefully breaks up that cooperation. Like happened when the US government funded drug gangs and arrested black panthers members to specifically break up black communities throughout the US. Or when the US government funded drug gangs and armed fascists to specifically break up socialist communities in central and south America. Or when the US government funded drug gang religious fanatics to break up communist communities in the middle east and South-East Asia.
It’s not that the entire system needs to change for this to work, it’s that this working changes the entire system.
Would it really? Capitalism is fundamentally a system of economic social relations, workers sell their labour power to the capitalism and so on - that's the fundamental of it and all the various institutions inside (e.g. the police, financial sector, etc) aren't essential/fundamental to the system. They can be changed/tweaked or abolished when the need arises, but the economic social relation between the two main classes cannot be.
Creating some self-managing community that focuses on eliminating the need for police doesn't fundamentally challenge the system (economic class relations), neither does it really challenge the police as an institution given how they'll still exist outside that community and, as you point out, is able to crush this community anytime if it ever becomes a legitimate threat.
Community self-management would quickly result in the redistribution (and hopeful removal) of the inequal
... Show more...
It’s not that the entire system needs to change for this to work, it’s that this working changes the entire system.
Would it really? Capitalism is fundamentally a system of economic social relations, workers sell their labour power to the capitalism and so on - that's the fundamental of it and all the various institutions inside (e.g. the police, financial sector, etc) aren't essential/fundamental to the system. They can be changed/tweaked or abolished when the need arises, but the economic social relation between the two main classes cannot be.
Creating some self-managing community that focuses on eliminating the need for police doesn't fundamentally challenge the system (economic class relations), neither does it really challenge the police as an institution given how they'll still exist outside that community and, as you point out, is able to crush this community anytime if it ever becomes a legitimate threat.
Community self-management would quickly result in the redistribution (and hopeful removal) of the inequalities
The community would still operate under capitalist system which reproduces inequality - after all, the community does need money for things like food, rent, utility, essentials, etc. This requires participation in wage labour/markets which means there's still income inequality, inequality in time one has to participate in the community, some people possibly having extra leverage due to private property ownership or their income/education, therefore new hierarchies spawning as a result, etc.
A commune like that under a capitalist system would be good as a survival strategy where the least well off can be supported and be kept over the poverty line (therefore reducing the need for theft but not eliminating it), but it wouldn't remove economic or social inequality - it will just seep back in from the outside.
No matter what system you have, the luck of the draw will give some people more powerful hands than others. If that is enough to destroy your system, then your system can never be implemented in reality.
The self-managing community would have inequality, but its organisatory principles would address that inequality in the same way that they would address an inequality that is caused by natural randomness. If that method of addressing inequality is more empowering for the community than capitalist democracy, then the community would gain in power relative to capitalist communities. This inspires other communities to likewise empower themselves, and either together or alone they can fight off police action and start a revolution.
Everybody just getting along and cooperating and not fucking with each other sounds dope too. So go ahead, make that happen and we won't need cops. While you're at it, lack of fires and accidental injuries would be super dope too. Got an ETA on those?
If that makes me sound like a hardline law-and-order type, guess again meme-brain, I'm just intelligent enough to know that seriously thinking we don't need cops is idiotic.
Your post makes it look like a binary choice between cop-filled reality and cop-free fantasy. But there are marked differences between how many cops (many = often more stupid, untrained, poorly selected, corrupt) a society needs and what activity is expected of them.
Existing societies also demonstrate a vastly different need for imprisoning people.
Myself, I think that prisoners per capita is a better indicator than cops per capita. The latter gives weird results heavily tilted towards microstates (lead by Vatican, Pitcairn Islands and Motserrat).
Maximum of prisoners per capita: North Korea (undisclosed but estimated), El Salvador (1600 per 100K), Cuba (794), Rwanda (637), Turkmenistan (576), United States (541).
Your post makes it look like a binary choice between cop-filled reality and cop-free fantasy. But there are marked differences between how many cops (many = often more stupid, untrained, poorly selected, corrupt) a society needs and what activity is expected of them.
Existing societies also demonstrate a vastly different need for imprisoning people.
Myself, I think that prisoners per capita is a better indicator than cops per capita. The latter gives weird results heavily tilted towards microstates (lead by Vatican, Pitcairn Islands and Motserrat).
Maximum of prisoners per capita: North Korea (undisclosed but estimated), El Salvador (1600 per 100K), Cuba (794), Rwanda (637), Turkmenistan (576), United States (541).
Minimum of prisoners per capita: go and have a look, it's interesting. The leading 5 have a trend towards microstates and very poor developing countries, but if one filters them out and chooses sizable countries with functioning economies, the first that comes across is Japan - with an incarceration rate of 33 per 100K. That's 48 times less than El Salvador and 16 times less than the United States. The first European country on the list is Finland with 52 per 100K, indicating approximately what a "western style" society can achieve. The EU average seems to be around 100 per 100K. The highest rated EU country seems to be Poland with 194 per 100K.
Notably, the first somewhat sizable European country and western-type society on both lists is Finland. It has the lowest prisoners per capita in Europe (at 52 per 100K) and the lowest cops per capita in Europe at 132 per 100K. It is not a known haven of rampant crime - it has really low crime rates too. Apparently in some conditions, you can have few cops, few prisoners and limited crime.
My guess - I could be wrong - is that the quality and coverage of social security, education and health care are what actually make the difference. Most people don't start criminal activity for fun. Contributing factors include desperate poverty, poor parenting, lacking education, mental illness and exposure to trauma, damage from disease and substance abuse, etc, etc. Lots of full prisons are probably a factor that contributes to criminality, by making a "higher education in crime" accessible to more people.
Very thoughtful, but your comment really should be addressed to OP and not to me. My comment was specifically a rely to, "Who needs cops anyway?" Not needing cops is the fantasy, needing cops is the reality. Sorry if you translated the word "cops" to "a cop-filled reality" but that wasn't what I said or meant. Misinterpreting simple terms as an extreme version that would be easy to argue with seems very popular. I think we need the number of cops we need, not a regimented "cop-filled" (or prison-filled) world at all.
Well, what are you doing right now? Feel free to organize your own DIY law enforcement. But doing social media is so much easier isn't it? That's EXACTLY why OP's proposed alternative isn't practical. That's not a criticism against you or anyone else here, it's just facing the truth. We could make OP's vision a reality, but we won't. Getting off your ass and doing it would prove me wrong, but a downvote just proves me right.
Okay, but at some point you won't be working or taking a dump, so you'll be organizing that whole law enforcement thing and we don't need cops, right? Good for you! Let me know how it works out!
My point is that people could be doing the DIY law enforcement thing right now, and they aren't. Reality speaks for itself. So either get off your ass and do it or STFU. What are you, 13? Blocking you dude.
What we need is a police force of negotiators and social workers.
A police officer should only get a job after a mandatory time spent as a social worker and a expensive study of law and peaceful conflict resolving.
Before that: no weapons and no authority.
Also accountability: every bullet and every taser use has to be explained. Cams 24/7 on the job, disabling them should be a grounds for immediate expulsion.
Oh and of course, cops should no longer be above the law.
I think this would also scare away a lot of the people who become police officers for the wrong reasons.
Yes, I believe it could be possible to have good cops - it's just not possible under the current system. Hell, the current system is a deterrent to good cops.
I think the difference is the idea of people from the community, with the consent of the community, policing said community. From the community, for the community. I think it's a nice idea, but it really depends on the actual community what that would look like. More peaceful and inclusive in some places, horribly authoritarian and racist (even worse than US cops now) in others.
But yeah it'd just be different form of policing and those doing it could be just called police.
Normally theyre called gangs. The thing that made the black panthers special is that as a cause it was killed before it deteriorated. A lot of gangs form to protect from other gangs, police corruption, and general sense of community.
Usually most folks aren't willing to do things free, so it devolves as it grows. Loses the original basis for formation. It's why christians is a confusing term, you have atheists, catholics, buddhists, etc. All lumped in while all can and are christian, there is degrees of severity.
Atheists can be christians by believing in the structure provided through it, atheism is just not believing in god.
I do not believe in a greater being, I believe in man. Even Jesus himself did not claim to be of god but of man, and that he was purely a messenger.
Buddhist's can be primarily Christians as well, however they adhere not to just one guide of knowledge. That's the weakness with my experience in western life, I was born christian. I saw buddhism as a differing way of life, while it really is more structural and philosophical to me than spiritual.
Dramatization and symbolism is lost when talking about something as complex as religion.
The bible itself is a collection of texts, your spiritualism and religion doesn't end there. It is something you live, endure, question, and eventually absolve yourself of through determination. It's more just a guise for talking about our mortality, consequences, acknowledgements, and the thereafter.
So in the wake of death, your own or any you love, you have to imagine them. You will miss them and wish it we
... Show more...
Atheists can be christians by believing in the structure provided through it, atheism is just not believing in god.
I do not believe in a greater being, I believe in man. Even Jesus himself did not claim to be of god but of man, and that he was purely a messenger.
Buddhist's can be primarily Christians as well, however they adhere not to just one guide of knowledge. That's the weakness with my experience in western life, I was born christian. I saw buddhism as a differing way of life, while it really is more structural and philosophical to me than spiritual.
Dramatization and symbolism is lost when talking about something as complex as religion.
The bible itself is a collection of texts, your spiritualism and religion doesn't end there. It is something you live, endure, question, and eventually absolve yourself of through determination. It's more just a guise for talking about our mortality, consequences, acknowledgements, and the thereafter.
So in the wake of death, your own or any you love, you have to imagine them. You will miss them and wish it were true, in it you will find your spark. You will awaken the ability to see the suffering, phantoms and demons everyone carries. However in such suffering you will savor the most delicate of kindness, appreciate the little passing moments.
In that you awaken the ~~sharingan~~ royalty free eyeball to see something you couldn't before. I don't think it is god, rather passion for the nectar of life. Regardless of hardships.
For context. Catholic raised. Buddhist by 11. Sikh by 18. Eventually found Sri Ramakrishna's teachings in a little free library this year. All while atheist - and now I question that, as this book allowed me to believe something I never could.
Oh so like first it starts out protecting the community from issues but then it turns into "the crips have to pay" and now heroin to pay for a turf war...
You start protecting the community but who is paying you, your rent, or your food? You have to start charging and now you're another tax. Tensions rise. And yes this would impact drug trafficking which is usually lethal. Note, junkies are relatively safe, dont get between their drugs or stare and you are good.
Trying to do good is difficult because by definition, the only good thing you can do is retain the status quo. Any change will have negative repercursions.
A good goal quickly deteriorates when the power structure forces you to deal with the devil. And where does he reside?
I've never needed a cop for anything, and in the case of theft, I hardly expect the item back in any usable condition anyway.
If someone shoots me and runs off, the cops can't unshoot me, or unbeat me up, or unrape me. They might beat me up just for asking for help. Who's to say I get a good cop that day?
A neighborhood in Seattle pretty much did what you're talking about a few years ago, on a rudimentary zero-budget level. In fact I've been friends for years with one of the people who were deeply involved in it. But it wasn't a "study" and I'm pretty sure nobody collected any statistics. And it only lasted a few months. I actually have no objection to it, what my comment said was that people aren't going to do it. And look around you - the model is right there. But in a culture where fewer and fewer people even cook their own meals anymore, even fewer are willing to personally devote their valuable time to DIY law enforcement.
Cops dont responsibly handle the authority they have been given and they desperately need to be put under adult supervision. We cant count of either of the two political parties to do that. Its been that way for at least 100 years. So maybe getting rid of them and letting something new form is the only way. They are hopeless.
I mean, it think it's the wrong question. I think the question is, what can we do to minimize the need for police? The problem there is it usually involves lifting up poorer communities and no one wants to supply these communities with the resources to do it.
Amen. What I find fascinating and difficult to swallow is impoverished (and non) people's desire to have kids and not raise them, almost as if they are happy with their shit sandwich, and think "yeah" I'll give this to a another human. Boy o boy have I seen deplorables breed when they are in no capacity to look after themselves. It comes across to me as a type of evil. The meat grinder is made from this stupidity.
The cruelest thing you can do to another person is to bring them into the world. If you're already going to be that much of a monster the least you can do is fucking look after them, too.
You reduce the need for it, you reduce their military power. You give them better training and force them to use non lethal forces when possible (usually it is)
Stop breaking into people's houses incorrectly and shooting them
Also forced body cameras and strict follow up
Police should be needed less, but police still need to be policed by the people
Can we get the slavery aspect far the fuck away from punishment as well? I’m sick of this country (America) acting like the moral arbiter of the world while we still practice slavery.
Mmm, not sure I like this better. If the majority in your community are filled with religious crazies suddenly you're ruled by backwards ass religious laws from millenia ago. Laws and enforcement would be even more incoherent, not less. No matter who is enforcing the laws, we need ways to keep ALL people in power accountable regardless of how it's organized and I don't think that goes away in a more anarchist kind of world.
I had an argument about this with a friend once. I was saying if we just abolish the police, private enterprise will probably step in to fill the gap. I don't want that. I don't want amazon offering policing services (as part of Prime. vomit).
I think the police need to be split up into smaller institutions, and have a lot less murder powers.
Someone needs to address the "Someone broke into my house and stole my TV" problem, without a profit motive and with accountability.
There should be something to address "My neighbor is screaming at his wife and I think he's hitting her" that doesn't involve some low empathy assholes with guns rolling up to mock the woman.
Strict hiring policies so you aren't scraping the bottom of the barrel. Better and longer training pipelines so you're getting career professionals instead of thugs. Better accountability and enforcement of regulations so they're being held to standards consummate with their responsibilities. Letting beat cops police their own communities so they have a stake in things.
And this I think is unique to the US, getting rid of the mind boggling layers of law enforcement. In Australia, we have state and federal police. Not state, federal, county, city, campus, sherrifs, and whatever.
They need to have a FEDERAL licence to provide law enforcement. So you cant just move when you get in trouble.
Each officer needs to carry their own "malpractice" insurance so the city/state doesnt have a financial interest in ignoring bad behavior.
Make "Abuse of the public trust" a federal felony. Officer making bad judgement calls in the heat of the moment is one thing but calculated corruption should be a federal offence.
The 'community patrols' would very quickly turn into KKK lynch mobs going after anyone that was 'woke'.
Yeah, ACAB, but the alternative that would happen in most places is pretty bad too. There's gotta be a 3rd way to keep people safe without using either cops as they exist now or vigilance committees.
newnton
in reply to compostgoblin • • •like this
Pebble_Clef likes this.
reshared this
Giovanni reshared this.
Mobilityfuture
in reply to newnton • • •Gustephan
in reply to newnton • • •chonglibloodsport
in reply to Gustephan • • •Cops still have rules of engagement. Whenever you think “this could not get any worse” it could actually get worse. A lot worse.
We could have large gangs of white men conducting pogroms, moving house to house shooting anyone they found who wasn’t white. They could be torching every house and creating wildfires that destroy large sections of the cities.
This is all the kinda stuff that happened in the past. Antisemitic pogroms in Europe in the 20th century and earlier, for example.
Gustephan
in reply to chonglibloodsport • • •chonglibloodsport
in reply to Gustephan • • •No, that’s not how it works. Regulations do exist even when they’re not enforced 100% of the time. Otherwise no regulation would ever exist since no regulation has a perfect track record of enforcement.
The other side of the coin is community norms. Most laws that regulate behaviour need to operate within a space of norms. Look at prohibition on alcohol for example. It was WIDELY disregarded (at speakeasies for example) because it was a regulation that disregarded norms around alcohol consumption in the US. On the other hand, alcohol consumption is illegal in some Muslim countries and the law rarely needs to be enforced because norms against alcohol consumption are deeply embedded in Islamic beliefs.
The same can be said around regulation of police. Different police cultures exist in different countries. Police in countries other than the US vary quite a lot, and in some countries the police have very strict norms of professionalism and non-violent conflict resolution. Police in the US frequently have a warrior mentality and the literal belief that they are
... Show more...No, that’s not how it works. Regulations do exist even when they’re not enforced 100% of the time. Otherwise no regulation would ever exist since no regulation has a perfect track record of enforcement.
The other side of the coin is community norms. Most laws that regulate behaviour need to operate within a space of norms. Look at prohibition on alcohol for example. It was WIDELY disregarded (at speakeasies for example) because it was a regulation that disregarded norms around alcohol consumption in the US. On the other hand, alcohol consumption is illegal in some Muslim countries and the law rarely needs to be enforced because norms against alcohol consumption are deeply embedded in Islamic beliefs.
The same can be said around regulation of police. Different police cultures exist in different countries. Police in countries other than the US vary quite a lot, and in some countries the police have very strict norms of professionalism and non-violent conflict resolution. Police in the US frequently have a warrior mentality and the literal belief that they are entering a war zone when they go to patrol in certain neighbourhoods. Is it any wonder that they don’t develop any bonds with those communities so that they don’t feel any reluctance to behave like violent thugs?
Gustephan
in reply to chonglibloodsport • • •I'm not complaining about spotty enforcement of the law against American police, I'm complaining about things like qualified immunity or the thin blue line shit used to protect cops from consequences when they explicitly and clearly break the law. A regulation with less than perfect enforcement is still a regulation. A regulation with legal doctrine (QI) explicitly stating that it can be broken with no consequence however absolutely stops being a regulation.
I generally agree with the content of your second two paragraphs, but i do not see how they are relevant to discussion about whether the police can accurately be called an unregulated militia. Yes, law is subjective and generally defined by the mores of the society that follows it. "Cops don't have to follow the law and should be allowed to murder people with no consequences" is absolutely not part of the zeitgeist
chonglibloodsport
in reply to Gustephan • • •Tough on crime politics continues to be very big in a lot of places where the worst police abuses occur. For every one of those stories where a cop seriously injured or killed someone unjustly, you can find people in that community cheering for, not protesting against, the police. The “thin blue line” and “blue lives matter” flags and bumper stickers are very popular and frequently displayed by people who are not cops themselves.
Qualified immunity came out of Pierson v. Ray (1967), a landmark case right in the middle of the civil rights movement. There are many people in the US who continue to believe that civil rights are a mistake and that the government should’ve cracked down on the civil rights movement much harder. Watch a movie like Dirty Harry (1971) if you want an example of popular reactionary sentiment towards civil rights. Rather being called a villain, C
... Show more...Tough on crime politics continues to be very big in a lot of places where the worst police abuses occur. For every one of those stories where a cop seriously injured or killed someone unjustly, you can find people in that community cheering for, not protesting against, the police. The “thin blue line” and “blue lives matter” flags and bumper stickers are very popular and frequently displayed by people who are not cops themselves.
Qualified immunity came out of Pierson v. Ray (1967), a landmark case right in the middle of the civil rights movement. There are many people in the US who continue to believe that civil rights are a mistake and that the government should’ve cracked down on the civil rights movement much harder. Watch a movie like Dirty Harry (1971) if you want an example of popular reactionary sentiment towards civil rights. Rather being called a villain, Clint Eastwood’s character was seen as a hero defending American values against violent leftist thugs.
That all said, police are still regulated by use of force rules. Here’s a case from December 2024 where a Fort Worth Texas cop was fired for unjustified use of force.
KVUE
YouTubeOne_Honest_Dude
in reply to chonglibloodsport • • •keranews.org/criminal-justice/…
That officer was "fired" for similar abuses from a different department in 2013. Eventually being reinstated AND given back pay before then moving to Fort Worth and doing it again. He received no punishment and it is very likely this case will resolve in a similar fashion. The police union is currently defending him, this will end up in arbitration just like when he was fired in Irving.
Fired Fort Worth officer was also accused of violating use of force policies in Irving
Penelope Rivera (KERA)chonglibloodsport
in reply to One_Honest_Dude • • •Delphia
in reply to newnton • • •Or the meth making bikers with the enormous pile of firearms decide they want to run the county. Jan 6 happened because one side was absolutely not afraid to use violence and another side wanted to play fair and by the rules.
Never underestimate the capacity of assholes to be assholes.
Fubarberry
in reply to compostgoblin • • •dohpaz42
in reply to Fubarberry • • •Are you fucking comparing the goddamned KKK with the Black Panthers?
No. Abso-fucking-lutely NO! Do better.
SchmidtGenetics
in reply to dohpaz42 • • •Snot Flickerman
in reply to dohpaz42 • • •They aren't, they are pointing out self-organizing groups like this can be made into something good as well as something bad. That's kind of the whole point of government and regulations, to try to prevent that. Obviously that has failed in most cases, but it doesn't mean the goal itself is pointless.
the-independent.com/news/world…
Here's a more recent example. These groups can often end up exploiting the things they claim to protect. That's just humans being human.
Vice president of Bikers Against Child Abuse arrested for child porn possession
Madeline Sherratt (The Independent)P1k1e
in reply to Snot Flickerman • • •like this
missingno likes this.
ysjet
in reply to Snot Flickerman • • •Feathercrown
in reply to ysjet • • •SoftestSapphic
in reply to Feathercrown • • •He got ratiod by redditors but he's not wrong
Community organization is objectively better than our current approach to police which is to act as an occupying military force.
Honytawk
in reply to SoftestSapphic • • •Police is community (government) organized.
The only difference is size.
SoftestSapphic
in reply to Honytawk • • •NostraDavid
in reply to dohpaz42 • • •Improve the world, start with yourself. You muppet.
Feydaikin
in reply to Fubarberry • • •unexposedhazard
in reply to Fubarberry • • •funkless_eck
in reply to Fubarberry • • •a) isn't "the police" just a wider definition of "a community organizing itself"
b) half the police are in the fucking klan anyway lol
Comment105
in reply to funkless_eck • • •The police is supposed to be a standardized rules based version of this, where the whole force is subject to law and can be held accountable, because chances are that unless you're lucky or able to move, you'll have a less than ideal local community.
It's not exactly unusual for people to be either lazy or unethical.
You're almost lucky if they just reject your efforts to organize, the guys in your community could easily do like crooked cops and repurpose the group to do crimes like harassment, theft, extortion, assault, kidnapping, rape and murder together. Of course the first ones being more likely.
Some of you might prefer the targets they pick, though. Like beating a racist Asian grocer, threatening a woman 10 blocks away who cheated on one of the guys, and maybe kidnap and sodomize some dweeb none of you liked since high school. Shit like that.
American police probably has too many issues to be reformed without being completely rebuilt with fresh hires across the board and making new rules and procedures. All "cops" should be fired, all "cop" culture m
... Show more...The police is supposed to be a standardized rules based version of this, where the whole force is subject to law and can be held accountable, because chances are that unless you're lucky or able to move, you'll have a less than ideal local community.
It's not exactly unusual for people to be either lazy or unethical.
You're almost lucky if they just reject your efforts to organize, the guys in your community could easily do like crooked cops and repurpose the group to do crimes like harassment, theft, extortion, assault, kidnapping, rape and murder together. Of course the first ones being more likely.
Some of you might prefer the targets they pick, though. Like beating a racist Asian grocer, threatening a woman 10 blocks away who cheated on one of the guys, and maybe kidnap and sodomize some dweeb none of you liked since high school. Shit like that.
American police probably has too many issues to be reformed without being completely rebuilt with fresh hires across the board and making new rules and procedures. All "cops" should be fired, all "cop" culture must be cleaned out and left to rot in shitty bars where old gangster cops will inevitably gather in the aftermath, where an actual new and accountable police force will likely arrest them and put them in prison for whatever fucked up shit they've just done.
oo1
in reply to Comment105 • • •It's the regulation, transparency, accountability that is used to weed out bad cops that is needed to make it beneficial to society.
perestroika
in reply to Fubarberry • • •As a minimum, how about frequent rotation and a sortition + selection system to staff the squads?
Imaginary example:
Two "cops" are needed for a term of 90 days (side note: in this hypothetical society, it could be that a cop is not a first responder but an investigator - first responders may be selected by proximity to the event and called up using some automated emergency messaging system). An investigator is allowed to request expert assistance from outside their department and often does.
At first, 10 candidates are sortitioned at random. Out of them, 3 refuse the job for various reasons, 7 go through instruction and pass evaluation. Out of them, 3 either step out during training or fail exams, 4 complete exams. Among them, another round of sortition occurs: 2 are selected at random, while 2 are paid compensation for study and assigned to reserve. If lottery chooses them again, they won't need to pass exams.
This might be possible to enhance with other tricks. If feedback shows that cops cannot be impartial near their home, then they don't work near the
... Show more...As a minimum, how about frequent rotation and a sortition + selection system to staff the squads?
Imaginary example:
Two "cops" are needed for a term of 90 days (side note: in this hypothetical society, it could be that a cop is not a first responder but an investigator - first responders may be selected by proximity to the event and called up using some automated emergency messaging system). An investigator is allowed to request expert assistance from outside their department and often does.
At first, 10 candidates are sortitioned at random. Out of them, 3 refuse the job for various reasons, 7 go through instruction and pass evaluation. Out of them, 3 either step out during training or fail exams, 4 complete exams. Among them, another round of sortition occurs: 2 are selected at random, while 2 are paid compensation for study and assigned to reserve. If lottery chooses them again, they won't need to pass exams.
This might be possible to enhance with other tricks. If feedback shows that cops cannot be impartial near their home, then they don't work near their home. If however, feedback shows that they perform best near their home, then the opposite way.
The main goals this would aim to achieve:
Yeather
in reply to perestroika • • •SoftestSapphic
in reply to Fubarberry • • •100_kg_90_de_belin
in reply to SoftestSapphic • • •Shiggles
in reply to Fubarberry • • •Tiresia
in reply to Fubarberry • • •You can't draw blood from a stone. If community self-organizing gets you the KKK, that community was fucked to begin with. The USA has always been extremely racist, it's a matter of to what extent we give the racist police a legal monopoly on violence and place them above the law. At least when they wear ghost outfits you don't have an illusion of reasonability.
Also note that the KKK never aimed to replace the police for the community the KKK came from, but rather to build upon police oppression of people outside the community. The two situations are not analogous, and if KKK members had to police their own community they would be much more gentle and constructive in their methods.
BigMacHole
in reply to compostgoblin • • •sga
in reply to compostgoblin • • •Don't take what i say in the wrong way but what is listed does not really work any better than police. And before i go further, I also live in a place where police is lazy corrupt and racist to some extent, but first 2 are also a result of the fact they are not paid well.
- Teach everyone self defence - that is good in principle, but it is double edged sword - you are also possible training a future criminal, and it would most likely still be a net benefit
- organise your local communities and do community patrols (I don't remember much about how it is done in wakanda, only saw the first movie and also a long time ago) - there are 2 possible ways - either we cycle through the population - then the quality of patrol would "vary" to put it gently, if we make a small subset of people who are nominated for the job - then you have made police again - they can still get corrupt
- Handle conflict mediation without a racist incarceration system that doesn't work? - it is spoken in a self fulfulling prophecy way - it assumes (1) conflict mediation is always possible an
... Show more...Don't take what i say in the wrong way but what is listed does not really work any better than police. And before i go further, I also live in a place where police is lazy corrupt and racist to some extent, but first 2 are also a result of the fact they are not paid well.
What is written, mostly works for a small community (of the size of a village (< 1000)). This may also justify living in smaller self sufficient communities, but this is not efficient (in sense of resource usage) - too many people would be constantly reinventing wheels. Also, the "quality" (read threat level) of criminal would vary from village to village, and if a criminal goes on village hopping rampage, these disconencted villages would be at a disdvantage, they can act like fediverse network - share the "post" with federating "communities" but if they are not federating with a community (either intentionally, or they have never come across yet) then the "post" would go unnoticed.
nublug
in reply to sga • • •like this
Toz likes this.
sga
in reply to nublug • • •Beastimus
in reply to sga • • •sga
in reply to Beastimus • • •Beastimus
in reply to sga • • •swab148
in reply to sga • • •faythofdragons
in reply to sga • • •1 is actually not as hard as people make it out to be, people just think 'mediation' and 'giving orders' are the same thing. I did care for developmentally disabled adults, and part of my training was in conflict mediation. I've also worked in a low-cost hotel that housed drug dealers, and preferred to de-escalate conflicts between tweakers myself instead of calling the cops. One of the huge problems with the US police forces is that they generally assume conflict mediation isn't going to work and jump straight to guns.
I also don't understand why it's not a political talking point that happy people don't commit crime to begin with. The US is allergic to taxes being used to increase happiness. Benefits keep getting shot down like, oh no, we can't have aid because people won't use it to better themselves, they're just going to stop stealing booze and start paying for it. Even their supposed downside is an actual improvement, I don't get it.
2ugly2live
in reply to compostgoblin • • •They did great community work.
Nasan
in reply to 2ugly2live • • •Match!!
in reply to 2ugly2live • • •Commiunism
in reply to compostgoblin • • •The entire system would need to change for this to work though - there ain't no way that in an unequal society such as ours where not everyone's needs are met (and crime essentially staying as high as it is today) community self-management would be sustainable.
Often crime is committed out of frustration (like violence born of inequality) or necessity (theft), so imagine being in a community in some larger city and having to deal with this every other day - I'd argue most people would just grow apathetic.
Tiresia
in reply to Commiunism • • •You're putting the cart before the horse. It's not that the entire system needs to change for this to work, it's that this working changes the entire system. Community self-management would quickly result in the redistribution (and hopeful removal) of the inequalities, possibly with help of guillotines. The primary job of the police is to prevent this redistribution.
Historically, pretty much every "thriving local culture" is the result of a downtrodden wretched hive of scum and villainy where self-organisation was more important than police during the time of flourishing. Broadway (and NYC in general), New Orleans, Amsterdam, most Italian and German cities' high points, London, Hong Kong, Osaka, etc.. It turns out that when people don't have enough, they will work together to get enough, and the benefits of that cooperation can be felt in that town for centuries. (Which is why gentrification is profitable - rich people exploit the commons of a flourishing lower class mutual aid network which persist in the design and culture of the space even when the lower class people are
... Show more...You're putting the cart before the horse. It's not that the entire system needs to change for this to work, it's that this working changes the entire system. Community self-management would quickly result in the redistribution (and hopeful removal) of the inequalities, possibly with help of guillotines. The primary job of the police is to prevent this redistribution.
Historically, pretty much every "thriving local culture" is the result of a downtrodden wretched hive of scum and villainy where self-organisation was more important than police during the time of flourishing. Broadway (and NYC in general), New Orleans, Amsterdam, most Italian and German cities' high points, London, Hong Kong, Osaka, etc.. It turns out that when people don't have enough, they will work together to get enough, and the benefits of that cooperation can be felt in that town for centuries. (Which is why gentrification is profitable - rich people exploit the commons of a flourishing lower class mutual aid network which persist in the design and culture of the space even when the lower class people are gone).
That is, unless a violent organisation like the police or the CIA or a multinational corporation or an invading army forcefully breaks up that cooperation. Like happened when the US government funded drug gangs and arrested black panthers members to specifically break up black communities throughout the US. Or when the US government funded drug gangs and armed fascists to specifically break up socialist communities in central and south America. Or when the US government funded drug gang religious fanatics to break up communist communities in the middle east and South-East Asia.
Commiunism
in reply to Tiresia • • •Would it really? Capitalism is fundamentally a system of economic social relations, workers sell their labour power to the capitalism and so on - that's the fundamental of it and all the various institutions inside (e.g. the police, financial sector, etc) aren't essential/fundamental to the system. They can be changed/tweaked or abolished when the need arises, but the economic social relation between the two main classes cannot be.
Creating some self-managing community that focuses on eliminating the need for police doesn't fundamentally challenge the system (economic class relations), neither does it really challenge the police as an institution given how they'll still exist outside that community and, as you point out, is able to crush this community anytime if it ever becomes a legitimate threat.
... Show more...Would it really? Capitalism is fundamentally a system of economic social relations, workers sell their labour power to the capitalism and so on - that's the fundamental of it and all the various institutions inside (e.g. the police, financial sector, etc) aren't essential/fundamental to the system. They can be changed/tweaked or abolished when the need arises, but the economic social relation between the two main classes cannot be.
Creating some self-managing community that focuses on eliminating the need for police doesn't fundamentally challenge the system (economic class relations), neither does it really challenge the police as an institution given how they'll still exist outside that community and, as you point out, is able to crush this community anytime if it ever becomes a legitimate threat.
The community would still operate under capitalist system which reproduces inequality - after all, the community does need money for things like food, rent, utility, essentials, etc. This requires participation in wage labour/markets which means there's still income inequality, inequality in time one has to participate in the community, some people possibly having extra leverage due to private property ownership or their income/education, therefore new hierarchies spawning as a result, etc.
A commune like that under a capitalist system would be good as a survival strategy where the least well off can be supported and be kept over the poverty line (therefore reducing the need for theft but not eliminating it), but it wouldn't remove economic or social inequality - it will just seep back in from the outside.
Tiresia
in reply to Commiunism • • •No matter what system you have, the luck of the draw will give some people more powerful hands than others. If that is enough to destroy your system, then your system can never be implemented in reality.
The self-managing community would have inequality, but its organisatory principles would address that inequality in the same way that they would address an inequality that is caused by natural randomness. If that method of addressing inequality is more empowering for the community than capitalist democracy, then the community would gain in power relative to capitalist communities. This inspires other communities to likewise empower themselves, and either together or alone they can fight off police action and start a revolution.
OBJECTION!
in reply to compostgoblin • • •Kusimulkku
in reply to OBJECTION! • • •Lovable Sidekick
in reply to compostgoblin • • •Everybody just getting along and cooperating and not fucking with each other sounds dope too. So go ahead, make that happen and we won't need cops. While you're at it, lack of fires and accidental injuries would be super dope too. Got an ETA on those?
If that makes me sound like a hardline law-and-order type, guess again meme-brain, I'm just intelligent enough to know that seriously thinking we don't need cops is idiotic.
perestroika
in reply to Lovable Sidekick • • •Your post makes it look like a binary choice between cop-filled reality and cop-free fantasy. But there are marked differences between how many cops (many = often more stupid, untrained, poorly selected, corrupt) a society needs and what activity is expected of them.
Existing societies also demonstrate a vastly different need for imprisoning people.
Myself, I think that prisoners per capita is a better indicator than cops per capita. The latter gives weird results heavily tilted towards microstates (lead by Vatican, Pitcairn Islands and Motserrat).
- Maximum of prisoners per capita: North Korea (undisclosed but estimated), El Salvador (1600 per 100K), Cuba (794), Rwanda (637), Turkmenistan (576), United States (541).
- Minimum of prisoners per capita: go and have a look, it's interesting. The leading 5
... Show more...Your post makes it look like a binary choice between cop-filled reality and cop-free fantasy. But there are marked differences between how many cops (many = often more stupid, untrained, poorly selected, corrupt) a society needs and what activity is expected of them.
Existing societies also demonstrate a vastly different need for imprisoning people.
Myself, I think that prisoners per capita is a better indicator than cops per capita. The latter gives weird results heavily tilted towards microstates (lead by Vatican, Pitcairn Islands and Motserrat).
Notably, the first somewhat sizable European country and western-type society on both lists is Finland. It has the lowest prisoners per capita in Europe (at 52 per 100K) and the lowest cops per capita in Europe at 132 per 100K. It is not a known haven of rampant crime - it has really low crime rates too. Apparently in some conditions, you can have few cops, few prisoners and limited crime.
My guess - I could be wrong - is that the quality and coverage of social security, education and health care are what actually make the difference. Most people don't start criminal activity for fun. Contributing factors include desperate poverty, poor parenting, lacking education, mental illness and exposure to trauma, damage from disease and substance abuse, etc, etc. Lots of full prisons are probably a factor that contributes to criminality, by making a "higher education in crime" accessible to more people.
Wikimedia list article
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Lovable Sidekick
in reply to perestroika • • •explodicle
in reply to Lovable Sidekick • • •OP: [proposes alternatives]
You: "So you're basically suggesting Mad Max"
Lovable Sidekick
in reply to explodicle • • •explodicle
in reply to Lovable Sidekick • • •"You are using social media" isn't the gotcha you think it is. I'm literally taking a dump at work right now.
Either a reply or a downvote proves you wrong.
Lovable Sidekick
in reply to explodicle • • •explodicle
in reply to Lovable Sidekick • • •Lovable Sidekick
in reply to explodicle • • •explodicle
in reply to Lovable Sidekick • • •Lovable Sidekick
Unknown parent • • •VisionScout
in reply to compostgoblin • • •CHOP/CHAZ
RedSnt 👓♂️🧩 🧠 🖥️
in reply to compostgoblin • • •Or who will arrest the folk giving less fortunate people food?
Xerxos
in reply to compostgoblin • • •What we need is a police force of negotiators and social workers.
A police officer should only get a job after a mandatory time spent as a social worker and a expensive study of law and peaceful conflict resolving.
Before that: no weapons and no authority.
Also accountability: every bullet and every taser use has to be explained. Cams 24/7 on the job, disabling them should be a grounds for immediate expulsion.
Oh and of course, cops should no longer be above the law.
I think this would also scare away a lot of the people who become police officers for the wrong reasons.
Yes, I believe it could be possible to have good cops - it's just not possible under the current system. Hell, the current system is a deterrent to good cops.
Kusimulkku
in reply to compostgoblin • • •punkisundead [they/them]
in reply to Kusimulkku • • •I agree with you. What would be the use of those patrols if not to police behaviour?
Maybe someone with more historical knowledge could expand on the meaning of "Black Panther style community patrols".
Kusimulkku
in reply to punkisundead [they/them] • • •I think the difference is the idea of people from the community, with the consent of the community, policing said community. From the community, for the community. I think it's a nice idea, but it really depends on the actual community what that would look like. More peaceful and inclusive in some places, horribly authoritarian and racist (even worse than US cops now) in others.
But yeah it'd just be different form of policing and those doing it could be just called police.
sunflowercowboy
in reply to Kusimulkku • • •Normally theyre called gangs. The thing that made the black panthers special is that as a cause it was killed before it deteriorated. A lot of gangs form to protect from other gangs, police corruption, and general sense of community.
Usually most folks aren't willing to do things free, so it devolves as it grows. Loses the original basis for formation. It's why christians is a confusing term, you have atheists, catholics, buddhists, etc. All lumped in while all can and are christian, there is degrees of severity.
FearMeAndDecay
in reply to sunflowercowboy • • •sunflowercowboy
in reply to FearMeAndDecay • • •Atheists can be christians by believing in the structure provided through it, atheism is just not believing in god.
I do not believe in a greater being, I believe in man. Even Jesus himself did not claim to be of god but of man, and that he was purely a messenger.
Buddhist's can be primarily Christians as well, however they adhere not to just one guide of knowledge. That's the weakness with my experience in western life, I was born christian. I saw buddhism as a differing way of life, while it really is more structural and philosophical to me than spiritual.
Dramatization and symbolism is lost when talking about something as complex as religion.
The bible itself is a collection of texts, your spiritualism and religion doesn't end there. It is something you live, endure, question, and eventually absolve yourself of through determination. It's more just a guise for talking about our mortality, consequences, acknowledgements, and the thereafter.
So in the wake of death, your own or any you love, you have to imagine them. You will miss them and wish it we
... Show more...Atheists can be christians by believing in the structure provided through it, atheism is just not believing in god.
I do not believe in a greater being, I believe in man. Even Jesus himself did not claim to be of god but of man, and that he was purely a messenger.
Buddhist's can be primarily Christians as well, however they adhere not to just one guide of knowledge. That's the weakness with my experience in western life, I was born christian. I saw buddhism as a differing way of life, while it really is more structural and philosophical to me than spiritual.
Dramatization and symbolism is lost when talking about something as complex as religion.
The bible itself is a collection of texts, your spiritualism and religion doesn't end there. It is something you live, endure, question, and eventually absolve yourself of through determination. It's more just a guise for talking about our mortality, consequences, acknowledgements, and the thereafter.
So in the wake of death, your own or any you love, you have to imagine them. You will miss them and wish it were true, in it you will find your spark. You will awaken the ability to see the suffering, phantoms and demons everyone carries. However in such suffering you will savor the most delicate of kindness, appreciate the little passing moments.
In that you awaken the ~~sharingan~~ royalty free eyeball to see something you couldn't before. I don't think it is god, rather passion for the nectar of life. Regardless of hardships.
For context. Catholic raised. Buddhist by 11. Sikh by 18. Eventually found Sri Ramakrishna's teachings in a little free library this year. All while atheist - and now I question that, as this book allowed me to believe something I never could.
Sizing2673
in reply to sunflowercowboy • • •Oh so like first it starts out protecting the community from issues but then it turns into "the crips have to pay" and now heroin to pay for a turf war...
That's interesting
sunflowercowboy
in reply to Sizing2673 • • •You start protecting the community but who is paying you, your rent, or your food? You have to start charging and now you're another tax. Tensions rise. And yes this would impact drug trafficking which is usually lethal. Note, junkies are relatively safe, dont get between their drugs or stare and you are good.
Trying to do good is difficult because by definition, the only good thing you can do is retain the status quo. Any change will have negative repercursions.
A good goal quickly deteriorates when the power structure forces you to deal with the devil. And where does he reside?
Vanilla_PuddinFudge
in reply to compostgoblin • • •I've never needed a cop for anything, and in the case of theft, I hardly expect the item back in any usable condition anyway.
If someone shoots me and runs off, the cops can't unshoot me, or unbeat me up, or unrape me. They might beat me up just for asking for help. Who's to say I get a good cop that day?
Lovable Sidekick
Unknown parent • • •kreskin
in reply to compostgoblin • • •Clinicallydepressedpoochie
in reply to compostgoblin • • •Christobootswiththepher
in reply to Clinicallydepressedpoochie • • •What I find fascinating and difficult to swallow is impoverished (and non) people's desire to have kids and not raise them, almost as if they are happy with their shit sandwich, and think "yeah" I'll give this to a another human.
Boy o boy have I seen deplorables breed when they are in no capacity to look after themselves. It comes across to me as a type of evil.
The meat grinder is made from this stupidity.
Drasglaf
in reply to Christobootswiththepher • • •This is why I decided I didn't want kids many years ago. I can barely look after myself, I can't imagine having to take care of kids.
frostysauce
in reply to Christobootswiththepher • • •Christobootswiththepher
in reply to frostysauce • • •Sizing2673
in reply to Clinicallydepressedpoochie • • •Agreed. It is multi step
You reduce the need for it, you reduce their military power. You give them better training and force them to use non lethal forces when possible (usually it is)
Stop breaking into people's houses incorrectly and shooting them
Also forced body cameras and strict follow up
Police should be needed less, but police still need to be policed by the people
Crikeste
in reply to compostgoblin • • •Sloogs
in reply to compostgoblin • • •UncleGrandPa
in reply to compostgoblin • • •Why are so many people convinced the Police we have are the only ones we COULD have?
We don't want NO Police
We want BETTER Police
jjjalljs
in reply to UncleGrandPa • • •I had an argument about this with a friend once. I was saying if we just abolish the police, private enterprise will probably step in to fill the gap. I don't want that. I don't want amazon offering policing services (as part of Prime. vomit).
I think the police need to be split up into smaller institutions, and have a lot less murder powers.
Someone needs to address the "Someone broke into my house and stole my TV" problem, without a profit motive and with accountability.
There should be something to address "My neighbor is screaming at his wife and I think he's hitting her" that doesn't involve some low empathy assholes with guns rolling up to mock the woman.
I don't know how to fix this.
TassieTosser
in reply to jjjalljs • • •Strict hiring policies so you aren't scraping the bottom of the barrel. Better and longer training pipelines so you're getting career professionals instead of thugs. Better accountability and enforcement of regulations so they're being held to standards consummate with their responsibilities. Letting beat cops police their own communities so they have a stake in things.
And this I think is unique to the US, getting rid of the mind boggling layers of law enforcement. In Australia, we have state and federal police. Not state, federal, county, city, campus, sherrifs, and whatever.
Duamerthrax
in reply to jjjalljs • • •Korne127
in reply to Duamerthrax • • •Duamerthrax
in reply to Korne127 • • •Delphia
in reply to UncleGrandPa • • •Ive repeated this argument so many times.
HelixDab2
in reply to compostgoblin • • •I live in a small town in the rural south.
The 'community patrols' would very quickly turn into KKK lynch mobs going after anyone that was 'woke'.
Yeah, ACAB, but the alternative that would happen in most places is pretty bad too. There's gotta be a 3rd way to keep people safe without using either cops as they exist now or vigilance committees.
jjjalljs
in reply to HelixDab2 • • •The guys in those hypothetical lynch mobs are the cops today.
At least in this scenario you could get your buds and shoot back at the klan fuckers, maybe.
TassieTosser
in reply to HelixDab2 • • •jaschen
in reply to compostgoblin • • •rockstarmode
in reply to jaschen • • •Crips, which have been given the backronym "Community Resistance In Progress".
But it doesn't take much research to show they do not stand for the types of values you're referring to.
Giovanni
in reply to compostgoblin • •