Are you in favor of abolishing the police?

[Christian Liberty]

But that does kind of raise an interesting question. How would you enforce a ban on all government in a society with no government? What would stop a group of people from getting together and starting a new government?

Having no government funding of police at any level would be how the police would be "abolished."

You mean there should be government police as long as people donate their own money to the government to fund it, rather than forcing them to fund it through taxes?

Please don't equate "no standing armies" to "anarchism".

Even though a permanently armed government was opposed in America for centuries and government police were unknown in America until the mid-19th century, this was not anarcho-anything--it was traditional conservative constitutional government. This point seems to be hard for a lot of people to understand: George Mason, Patrick Henry, and the best of the founders weren't anarchists (not that there's anything wrong with that) just because they were against militarization of the government and reserved the right of bearing arms on a permanent basis to the people.

The question really should be: Do you support upholding the ancient traditional conservative principle of a non-militarized government or are you a radical liberal who thinks that that's too old fashioned and times have changed and nowadays your local sheriff needs tanks and shock troops?

I'm not sure where I equated the two. I agree that you can oppose standing armies without being an anarchist.

 

[Tod]

I think there are way too many of them, with way too much funding. They could be cut back so that there are just enough to handle tasks like arresting real criminals.

 

[donnay]

Then why not just do away with the militarized police and just have regular police? Your answer to the poll question implies that you oppose having any kind of government police, "militarized" or not.

Correct. Sheriffs and deputies are constitutional--not police. Anyone can be deputized--meaning citizens.

 

[Brett85]

This isn't really a simple question either.

If you asked this question to the average American, they would think that it was a very simple question. It just isn't as simple here.

 

[Brett85]

Correct. Sheriffs and deputies are constitutional--not police. Anyone can be deputized--meaning citizens.

Ok, so you are in favor of abolishing the police. You're saying that the only kinds of law enforcement officials we should have are those who are elected by the voters. You're just saying that all police forces are "militarized?"

 

[69360]

No but I want Andy Taylor, not seal team 6.

 

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

We may not have had a police when our founders were around, but that doesn't mean that they were opposed to the concept of having a police

They did have government police back then--maybe not as thick and thuggish as nowadays--but they kicked them off the streets of Boston in 1775 and wrote prohibitions against them in their state constitutions in 1776. Radical liberals must rely on tricks such as inventing new terminology such as "public policy" and "police" to try to make us forget our traditional principles.

 

[Brett85]

There's still no real answer to that. If enough people wanted a State, and were motivated to create one, they would do so. If enough people want tyranny they'll get it, no matter what you start with. Neither Constitutionalism nor Anarchism can "work" without a critical mass of people who support them. Not necessarily a majority, but at least a sufficiently active minority.

Then couldn't anarchism ultimately cause us to have a Communist state, and cause us all to live under the rule of Communists? If the state were abolished, you might have the majority of Americans decide that they want to set up a Communist state, and they decide to do so despite your objections. Some of these Communists may have wanted to abolish the state in the first place in order to put in place a Communist system of government. Have you ever thought about the fact that abolishing the current state could simply mean that we would end up living under a far worse government?

 

[Christian Liberty]

We may not have had a police when our founders were around, but that doesn't mean that they were opposed to the concept of having a police. It just wasn't necessary back then when the population of the U.S was so small. It's absolutely necessary in a country of 300 million people. But there's no evidence that our founders actually opposed the concept of a police force; it simply wasn't needed at the time. But if the founding fathers were so opposed to having a government police force, you would think they would've included a prohibition on that as part of the Bill of Rights, but they didn't.

Whether its necessary or not could be debated.

But I don't see why the Founders would have included any such prohibition.

First of all, virtually any law you can think of is constititutional at the state level, and that's by design. Lincoln kind of destroyed this, but the states are supposed to be sovereign. We're not supposed to have an omnipotent Federal government constantly keeping the states in line.

Second of all, why would they have considered the idea of police at all? I'm pretty sure modern police would not have even been conceptualized at the time, so I don't see why they would have considered a ban on them. I seriously, seriously doubt Washington or Jefferson would be a big fan.

Third of all, many people here think that the opposition to standing armies (Which admittedly, wasn't clearly codified in the Constitution, but the Founder's opinions are not really unclear in this regard) applies to the police as well. I tend to agree, at least the way we have them now.

If you asked this question to the average American, they would think that it was a very simple question. It just isn't as simple here.

The average American thinks almost every question is simple. So what?

The average American would find even your ideas to be "radical anarchism." Heck, the media has convinced many "average Americans" that Cruz and Lee are anarchists. Why do you take them seriously at all?

Would the average American even consider the ethical issues involved behind taxation? Of course not, they simply presuppose its necessity without even thinking about it. Now, you may have considered it and decided that you believe its necessary, but how many Americans do you think have ever considered it? Not many. Regardless of whether you support taxes or not, would you claim that this is a simple question that should be ignored simply because most Americans ignore it?

Or how about the whole concept behind "collateral damage"? Do you think the average American has ever considered the ethical implications behind carpet bombing cities, or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagisaki? Of course not. USA#1 and "support our troops" is essentially their logic, they don't even think about it beyond that. Is this a simple question that should be ignored?

Or how about police enforcement of unjust laws. Most Americans say that cops are "just doing their jobs" when they break into someone's home to arrest them for doing drugs. Or TSA groping children and old grandmothers. Or CPS taking children away from parents who use medical marijuana or have truant children. Do you really think boobus would even think about the moral implications, the horrifying moral implications, behind this kind of stuff?

Of course not, they are conditioned sheep. Don't let them do any of your thinking for you.

As I said, anarchy is not really the main issue at hand. Radicalism is the main issue at hand. Deep-seated, passionate opposition to the status quo, a willingness to call it evil, is the main issue at hand.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Then couldn't anarchism ultimately cause us to have a Communist state, and cause us all to live under the rule of Communists? If the state were abolished, you might have the majority of Americans decide that they want to set up a Communist state, and they decide to do so despite your objections. Some of these Communists may have wanted to abolish the state in the first place in order to put in place a Communist system of government. Have you ever thought about the fact that abolishing the current state could simply mean that we would end up living under a far worse government?

Its possible, which, as I said, is why education is so important. But ultimately, yes its possible. I'd like to think its unlikely, and that people would enjoy actually living in a prosperous society, but it is possible.

I don't honestly see any point in considering it though, since we're already in borderline fascism already, and we'll likely be in full blown fascism before I'm dead.

 

[Brett85]

They did have government police back then--maybe not as thick and thuggish as nowadays--but they kicked them off the streets of Boston in 1775 and wrote prohibitions against them in their state constitutions in 1776.

Source please.

 

[donnay]

Ok, so you are in favor of abolishing the police. You're saying that the only kinds of law enforcement officials we should have are those who are elected by the voters. You're just saying that all police forces are "militarized?"

That's what I am saying. I am in favor of abolishing the federal militarized standing army--AKA: Police

 

[RickyJ]

I can't say I am for abolishing the police if they actually do what they are suppose to do, serve and protect. But if they are doing nothing but being first class a-holes and serving and protecting the elite only, and defending unconstitutional laws, then we could definitely do without them. Also the police should not try to recruit idiots like they obviously do by not accepting those that score above a certain level on their tests.

 

[donnay]

No but I want Andy Taylor, not seal team 6.

Andy Taylor was the sheriff.

 

[Brett85]

Would the average American even consider the ethical issues involved behind taxation? Of course not, they simply presuppose its necessity without even thinking about it. Now, you may have considered it and decided that you believe its necessary, but how many Americans do you think have ever considered it? Not many. Regardless of whether you support taxes or not, would you claim that this is a simple question that should be ignored simply because most Americans ignore it?

Well I think that the question I asked is a simple question, although the answer to the question can be complex.

 

[donnay]

I can't say I am for abolishing the police if they actually do what they are suppose to do, serve and protect. But if they are doing nothing but being first class a-holes and serving and protecting the elite only, and defending unconstitutional laws, then we could definitely do without them. Also the police should not try to recruit idiots like they obviously do by not accepting those that score above a certain level on their tests.

My signature speaks volumes:
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico

 

[Brett85]

That's what I am saying. I am in favor of abolishing the federal militarized standing army--AKA: Police

Well, I'm not saying that I'm in favor of federal funding of state and local police forces. Matters of crime and matters of law enforcement are generally state and local issues under our Constitution.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

But that does kind of raise an interesting question. How would you enforce a ban on all government in a society with no government? What would stop a group of people from getting together and starting a new government?

They'll have to set up a system that forces free people to be compliant with their demands. That's costly, and in a society that would reject coercion, unlikely to go smoothly.

 

[osan]

Abolish? Sure.

Hell, I'd burn them if I could.

 

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Source please.

I'll give you a hint, google: troops patrol streets of Boston 1775