Are you in favor of abolishing the police?

[Brett85]

These poll results are surprising. I understand that some people are saying that you can be in favor of abolishing the police and not be an anarchist. But, the practical effect of abolishing the police would be anarchy, so I don't really see any real difference between those who support abolishing the police but still want some extremely small level of government and those who support abolishing the police and having no government/state.

 

[green73]

These poll results are surprising. I understand that some people are saying that you can be in favor of abolishing the police and not be an anarchist. But, the practical effect of abolishing the police would be anarchy, so I don't really see any real difference between those who support abolishing the police but still want some extremely small level of government and those who support abolishing the police and having no government/state.

 

[donnay]

These poll results are surprising. I understand that some people are saying that you can be in favor of abolishing the police and not be an anarchist. But, the practical effect of abolishing the police would be anarchy, so I don't really see any real difference between those who support abolishing the police but still want some extremely small level of government and those who support abolishing the police and having no government/state.

This poll indicated to me that people are sick and tired of tyranny. The militarized police, as it stand now, are the henchmen for the PTB. You cannot live free with a government who has a standing army prepared to take down the citizenry with unlawful, unconstitutional laws. We have to go back to the way our government was meant to be--three branches of government and checks and balances. I do not consider that anarchy.

 

[Danke]

Immediately.

 

[Origanalist]

These poll results are surprising. I understand that some people are saying that you can be in favor of abolishing the police and not be an anarchist. But, the practical effect of abolishing the police would be anarchy, so I don't really see any real difference between those who support abolishing the police but still want some extremely small level of government and those who support abolishing the police and having no government/state.

Courts weren't part of the question.

 

[osan]

Somebody hasn't been paying attention.

Forgive me pal, but this isn't terribly helpful. It is clear you disagree but give no basis. We therefore have nothing on which to go in terms of evaluating the merits of your position. 69360 raises a valid sounding point. If you disagree, say why so we can better understand.

The problem with an anarchocapitalist/libertarian solution as some envision it is the issue of accountability. It is the same today with our current system. The trouble lies not in whether such functions as security are "public" or "private". At the root of it, all such concerns can be said to be one or the other because the functions are precisely the same in principle. Under either labeling scheme the key issue is that of accountability. Private "free market" security is no better than "public" if the players are not accountable. If Backwater murders my son in "defense" of their client's turf, the exact same questions arise regarding to whom they shall be accountable. To the client only? If so, prepare yourselves for the world of Mad Max and worse. If not, then to whom? The right answer is "everybody", but what does that mean in practical terms? In a purely private system, who gets to judge? Perhaps the Backwater client has his own courts. Perhaps Backwater itself has its own courts - not unthinkable, and in fact plausible and even likely for large organizations.

Would you trust Backwater to honestly police itself after murdering my son for no good reason at all? I sure as hell would not.

Accountability is the key issue in all matters of governance. All other considerations fall as distant secondaries to the primacy of accountability. In this, it would seem that "public" accountabilities may be superior because there is implied a universal standard for all. One would find the land difficult to travel safely if every property owner ruled his turf by arbitrarily differing standards of comport. If such a universal standard is in place, who is keeping it? Simple words on paper mean nothing if we do not accord with the specifications. This implies the need for a standard of behavior consistent with the specifications. This can get very twisted up, so lets not go further down the hole. Suffice to say that accountability lies at the very heart of this and accountability implies force. Therefore, if we are going to accept a standard of behavior, we must forsooth accept the presence of the threat of force to uphold the standard as effectively meaningful.

This can all go so very wrong and in fact it has as we can see daily here in our own lands, bringing it right back to our own doorsteps. If our hearts are not "clean" to some minimum standard, we are doomed. At this moment it appears that doom shall be ours, though I retain hope.

I think there is going to be a fight and this will indeed get out of hand. Where it will lead is anybody's guess, I suppose.

 

[tod evans]

These poll results are surprising. I understand that some people are saying that you can be in favor of abolishing the police and not be an anarchist. But, the practical effect of abolishing the police would be anarchy, so I don't really see any real difference between those who support abolishing the police but still want some extremely small level of government and those who support abolishing the police and having no government/state.

Courts weren't part of the question.

And you didn't specify which "police" you were inquiring about, I responded as I did because the majority of "police" are not sheriffs.

 

[Danke]

Forgive me pal, but this isn't terribly helpful. It is clear you disagree but give no basis. We therefore have nothing on which to go in terms of evaluating the merits of your position. 69360 raises a valid sounding point. If you disagree, say why so we can better understand.

The problem with an anarchocapitalist/libertarian solution as some envision it is the issue of accountability. It is the same today with our current system. The trouble lies not in whether such functions as security are "public" or "private". At the root of it, all such concerns can be said to be one or the other because the functions are precisely the same in principle. Under either labeling scheme the key issue is that of accountability. Private "free market" security is no better than "public" if the players are not accountable. If Backwater murders my son in "defense" of their client's turf, the exact same questions arise regarding to whom they shall be accountable. To the client only? If so, prepare yourselves for the world of Mad Max and worse. If not, then to whom? The right answer is "everybody", but what does that mean in practical terms? In a purely private system, who gets to judge? Perhaps the Backwater client has his own courts. Perhaps Backwater itself has its own courts - not unthinkable, and in fact plausible and even likely for large organizations.

Would you trust Backwater to honestly police itself after murdering my son for no good reason at all? I sure as hell would not.

Accountability is the key issue in all matters of governance. All other considerations fall as distant secondaries to the primacy of accountability. In this, it would seem that "public" accountabilities may be superior because there is implied a universal standard for all. One would find the land difficult to travel safely if every property owner ruled his turf by arbitrarily differing standards of comport. If such a universal standard is in place, who is keeping it? Simple words on paper mean nothing if we do not accord with the specifications. This implies the need for a standard of behavior consistent with the specifications. This can get very twisted up, so lets not go further down the hole. Suffice to say that accountability lies at the very heart of this and accountability implies force. Therefore, if we are going to accept a standard of behavior, we must forsooth accept the presence of the threat of force to uphold the standard as effectively meaningful.

This can all go so very wrong and in fact it has as we can see daily here in our own lands, bringing it right back to our own doorsteps. If our hearts are not "clean" to some minimum standard, we are doomed. At this moment it appears that doom shall be ours, though I retain hope.

I think there is going to be a fight and this will indeed get out of hand. Where it will lead is anybody's guess, I suppose.

Blackwater is funded by the governments. It is not private.

 

[osan]

And you didn't specify which "police" you were inquiring about, I responded as I did because the majority of "police" are not sheriffs.

Police <> sheriffs. These are disjoint sets.

 

[Brett85]

And you didn't specify which "police" you were inquiring about, I responded as I did because the majority of "police" are not sheriffs.

"Police" doesn't refer to Sheriffs. I understand that some people are saying they support county Sheriffs but not police. But it's entirely unrealistic to think that a Sheriff and a few citizen deputees could keep law and order in a massive city like Chicago or New York. It would be possible to have that type of government if we had a country of 30,000 people, not 300 million.

 

[Origanalist]

Forgive me pal, but this isn't terribly helpful. ...........................

You're forgiven, pal.That was a fairly long ramble about what? Accountability seems to be fairly rare as applied to those enforcing our "justice" system. There are too many laws, and too many with too much power to enforce them.

My original point should have been obvious,

Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
So what do you guys propose we do when Blackwater Xe or whatever they call themselves these days shoots and kills Grandpa for going 1 mph over the speed limit. They now have tanks and automatic weapons and are accountable to nobody but the property owner. Is sheriff Andy Taylor going to arrest them for killing grandpa with his 6 shooter? Nope now the sheriff needs his own tanks and automatic weapons to counter your "private security"

See how fast it spirals out of control? Your ideas only work in a libertarian fantasy world.

He just described the police as they already exist.

 

[tod evans]

"Police" doesn't refer to Sheriffs. I understand that some people are saying they support county Sheriffs but not police. But it's entirely unrealistic to think that a Sheriff and a few citizen deputees could keep law and order in a massive city like Chicago or New York. It would be possible to have that type of government if we had a country of 30,000 people, not 300 million.

Well my ol' hillbilly perspective is to just wall off the cities anyway.

If the county sheriff had true authority in those cities and was held accountable to the people and not the federal government things would change rapidly.

The problem is federal money, whether we're talking Po-Dunk Ozarks or Chicago.

 

[Danke]

"Police" doesn't refer to Sheriffs. I understand that some people are saying they support county Sheriffs but not police. But it's entirely unrealistic to think that a Sheriff and a few citizen deputees could keep law and order in a massive city like Chicago or New York. It would be possible to have that type of government if we had a country of 30,000 people, not 300 million.

Police have been sooo effective in Chicago...

 

[Brett85]

Police have been sooo effective in Chicago...

So because they're not 100% effective in fighting crime, the solution is to abolish them?

 

[fisharmor]

Or do you just mean outlaws wearing badges?

The definition of an outlaw is one who is no longer afforded protection by the legal system. What this means is that someone branded outlaw can be brought to justice in whatever manner those encountering him deem fit.

This is the exact reverse of police. Police by their very definition are not held accountable by the law. They are above or separate from the law.

If someone can figure out how to have police that are still bound by the same laws as non-police, then I might change my vote. All of the cases above that posit the possibility of having private security forces hinge on that one distinction: private security forces would still be held to the same legal standard as ordinary citizens.

That is the essence of why I am against police as a concept. Once you institute a police force, you are by definition granting them extreme leeway in breaking laws. That is the fundamental problem.
It doesn't matter whether we're talking about murder or speeding. The concept is the same. They break laws and are not held accountable.

Once you hold them accountable, they are no longer police.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

"Fighting crime"

Thanks. I needed the laugh.

 

[Danke]

So because they're not 100% effective in fighting crime, the solution is to abolish them?

100%?

not even close to that figure.

In fact, they are organized crime. Have you ever heard of Aaron Russo and his nightclub?

 

[Danke]

 

[kcchiefs6465]

One thing to consider is that 83% of those arrested have not committed a crime.

Federal police are unconstitutional. They need to go, no question about it. The war on drugs is unconstitutional. It needs ended. At the least 83% of police forces need to be fired. They are nothing more than revenue generators and encroach or flat out violate the natural rights of millions yearly. Federal grants to police departments are unconstitutional, as well. It needs ended. Bearcats need scrapped with proceeds put in a fund to pay those who can prove their rights violated. Police must wear go-pro cameras. If there is an incident where the tape is tampered with, it will be assumed the person accusing the officer of violating their rights is telling the truth. Aggravated sentences for crimes committed under the color of law. Anyone unjustly in prison, 83% of those there, at least, needs released immediately. Anything that does not violate the rights of someone else or where there is no discernible victim is not a crime. As such the statutes need removed, the Constitution amended to spell out this very simple notion of crimes vs. vices.

If these things were to happen I may be able to support the concept of police at a locally accountable level.

 

[69360]

He just described the police as they already exist.

That's not true. There is legal recourse in this country and it's easily accessible. If you file a lawsuit against the police, you will get your day in court and they will appear.

Now say you get your way and the police are abolished. You now have heavily armed private security forces. Who is going to hold them accountable for wrong doing? You have nobody to bring them into the court system. Are you going to trust bands of mercenaries to self police and make themselves available to the courts jurisdiction? Society will devolve rapidly.