Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Police and Military

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 2:34:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I get the overwhelming impression that one's views on anarchy hinge on one issue and one issue alone - your impression of how police powers would be appropriated post-revolution. There seem to be three primary schools of thought:

1) Police are necessary and, as a public resource, are external to the private market.
2) Police are necessary, however privatization is possible and indeed preferrable.
3) Police are unnecessary as well as undesirable.

This issue was a hot topic immediately preceding the "ancap exodus" on DDO a year or two ago. I believe that many of the ancaps were frustrated by being laughed off on the subject, as a private police force is both a necessity of the ideology as well as an easy target for criticism (combing police gaffs with the overall lack of morality in the private market appears to be a recipe for tyranny).

Assuming most of you believe the status quo is justified, why do you believe police are necessary for our survival? Police have existed for such a short time during human history... If police were removed, would thugs rule the land? Would totalitarian rule immediately follow an attempt at anarchy? Would a power vacuum suck in neighboring military forces to rule us?

My personal belief is that police are wholly unnecessary, and that the implementation of such an institution creates a lot of the problems we currently suffer from. Wealth disparity, for example, depends on police force to be maintained.

However I'm more interested in questioning the positives of police than I am in speculating on the negatives. It's hard to envision how, say, domestic violence would be affected with and without police because we don't have a whole lot of data to use to argue it. The entire world, as an extension of the First World's influnence, is pretty much policed in one way or another, after all.

The long-standing motto of the police has been "to serve and protect." I was awakened (by a conservative talk-radio host, no less) to the fact that this is completely false about ten years ago. He stated that the police do not serve, and they do not protect. They simple arrest people who break the law. To think any more of them is completely erroneous. Since then I've become enthralled in this idea, noticing that police have absolutely no ability to protect us at all. Last year my house was assaulted by a drunk Mexican guy who was trying to break down my door in the middle of the night (I have no idea why) and I called 911 because I was legally compelled to. When the police arrived, they were more interested in arresting me than him, because of my threats to him that the 911 operator heard over the phone. Since they couldn't show intent to commit a crime (he was intoxicated and confused about where he was) he was not arrested and was set loose to commit more havoc on the neighborhood.

The incompetence of the officers notwithstanding, police are not protectors. They do not guard you while you sleep. They cannot protect you from me if I were to threaten to come to your house and kill you, for instance. If I made that threat, how would you use the police to protect you? They would be limited to arresting me AFTER I broke the law.

The police do not serve or protect you. I think that your love of the police is based upon the idea that they are protecting you from evil, and since this assumption is unwarranted, you should reconsider your political views which are probably based largely on this unjustified assumption. Similarly, the only thing the military is protecting you from is other militaries. If we the people refused to cooperate with any military, we probably would have nothing to worry about. So what if China invaded us? In the WORST case scenario, they would simply continue business-as-usual... however the biggest fear IMO is that our leaders would now have slanted eyes instead of round. This is because of the phenomenon of nationalism and ethnocentrism. These are the real forces at work on the status-quo - not a determination to improve the well-being of us all.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 2:46:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 2:34:12 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I get the overwhelming impression that one's views on anarchy hinge on one issue and one issue alone - your impression of how police powers would be appropriated post-revolution. There seem to be three primary schools of thought:

1) Police are necessary and, as a public resource, are external to the private market.
2) Police are necessary, however privatization is possible and indeed preferrable.
3) Police are unnecessary as well as undesirable.

This issue was a hot topic immediately preceding the "ancap exodus" on DDO a year or two ago. I believe that many of the ancaps were frustrated by being laughed off on the subject, as a private police force is both a necessity of the ideology as well as an easy target for criticism (combing police gaffs with the overall lack of morality in the private market appears to be a recipe for tyranny).

Assuming most of you believe the status quo is justified, why do you believe police are necessary for our survival? Police have existed for such a short time during human history... If police were removed, would thugs rule the land? Would totalitarian rule immediately follow an attempt at anarchy? Would a power vacuum suck in neighboring military forces to rule us?

My personal belief is that police are wholly unnecessary, and that the implementation of such an institution creates a lot of the problems we currently suffer from. Wealth disparity, for example, depends on police force to be maintained.

However I'm more interested in questioning the positives of police than I am in speculating on the negatives. It's hard to envision how, say, domestic violence would be affected with and without police because we don't have a whole lot of data to use to argue it. The entire world, as an extension of the First World's influnence, is pretty much policed in one way or another, after all.

The long-standing motto of the police has been "to serve and protect." I was awakened (by a conservative talk-radio host, no less) to the fact that this is completely false about ten years ago. He stated that the police do not serve, and they do not protect. They simple arrest people who break the law. To think any more of them is completely erroneous. Since then I've become enthralled in this idea, noticing that police have absolutely no ability to protect us at all. Last year my house was assaulted by a drunk Mexican guy who was trying to break down my door in the middle of the night (I have no idea why) and I called 911 because I was legally compelled to. When the police arrived, they were more interested in arresting me than him, because of my threats to him that the 911 operator heard over the phone. Since they couldn't show intent to commit a crime (he was intoxicated and confused about where he was) he was not arrested and was set loose to commit more havoc on the neighborhood.

The incompetence of the officers notwithstanding, police are not protectors. They do not guard you while you sleep. They cannot protect you from me if I were to threaten to come to your house and kill you, for instance. If I made that threat, how would you use the police to protect you? They would be limited to arresting me AFTER I broke the law.

The police do not serve or protect you. I think that your love of the police is based upon the idea that they are protecting you from evil, and since this assumption is unwarranted, you should reconsider your political views which are probably based largely on this unjustified assumption. Similarly, the only thing the military is protecting you from is other militaries. If we the people refused to cooperate with any military, we probably would have nothing to worry about. So what if China invaded us? In the WORST case scenario, they would simply continue business-as-usual... however the biggest fear IMO is that our leaders would now have slanted eyes instead of round. This is because of the phenomenon of nationalism and ethnocentrism. These are the real forces at work on the status-quo - not a determination to improve the well-being of us all.

Bolded, Where's the evidence for the claim?

I don't see how law can exist without police, unless your also claiming that law didn't exist often in human history. If there were states though, there was law.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 3:15:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You underestimate the power of reputation, and fear.

If you hada police force nobody knew existed, then they would be significantly less effective at repelling crime than one that is known to exist.

And, merely because SOME police are suppsidely not effective, does not mean all are. Plus, I think this is simply a case of hating on the police.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 3:16:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, most of the issues you bring up have nothing to do with the police, and everything to do with current laws and such.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 3:37:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 3:34:59 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/9/2012 3:16:53 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Also, most of the issues you bring up have nothing to do with the police, and everything to do with current laws and such.

"Don't knock the police; they're just following orders!"

Surely you've heard of the Milgram's experiment on obedience.

And surely you realize that based on basic supply and demand, that police officers will always exist no matter what the laws are.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 3:38:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 3:34:59 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/9/2012 3:16:53 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Also, most of the issues you bring up have nothing to do with the police, and everything to do with current laws and such.

"Don't knock the police; they're just following orders!"

"Don't knock anyone who has a boss, has to follow certain rules or such, or just about anyone who wants to keep their job in general; they're just following orders."

See what I did there?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 4:16:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Since the dawn of organized society, society has tasked itself with a most incorrigible, tactless and futile endeavor. It has waged, since it's conception, an war on an indomitable force... that of crime. This prohibition on crime has taken many forms; wars on drug crimes, political crimes, petty crime, white collar crime and etc. Surely, the fact that crimes still continue, that criminality remains a problem intrinsic to the human condition, we must end the dark age of oppression of criminals, and in doing so usher in a new era of universal freedom, that is anarchy, where man may act as he pleases.

--

But all jokes aside, cops are like "great white sharks."
Tsar of DDO
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 4:43:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 3:37:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/9/2012 3:34:59 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/9/2012 3:16:53 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Also, most of the issues you bring up have nothing to do with the police, and everything to do with current laws and such.

"Don't knock the police; they're just following orders!"

Surely you've heard of the Milgram's experiment on obedience.

There but for the grace of God go I. Yeah. I think the state is just an epiphenomenon of preexisting exercises of power (which happen to interact/intersect in XYZ manner), so it's that behavior with which I'm concerned, rather than with police as such.

And surely you realize that based on basic supply and demand, that police officers will always exist no matter what the laws are.

That's complete conjecture. Our circumstances are historically contingent--they did not have to be this way, they do not currently have to be this way, nor must they be this way in the future. There is a particular psychological programming that goes into modern living. One piece of this, here particularly pertinent, is the culture of danger and fear cultivated in response to the humanist/utilitarian project of maximizing everyone's well-being (or whatever you want to call it). Many police functions arise precisely out of an imperative to minimize exposure to danger--hence, TSA in airports to minimize the risk of airborne terror; NSA et al. tapping phones, storing emails, etc. to minimize the danger of "homegrown" terrorism; the military and the CIA deploying domestic surveillance drones to keep an eye perpetually open to spot (and subsequently neutralize) potential threats. Hell, even something as mundane as banning trans fats is a good example--if we're going to be healthy and free, then we have to minimize our exposure to "bad" substances, even if we have to pass a law and increase policing capacity to make sure that businesses are behaving the way we want them to.

At 12/9/2012 3:38:38 PM, OberHerr wrote:
"Don't knock anyone who has a boss, has to follow certain rules or such, or just about anyone who wants to keep their job in general; they're just following orders."

See what I did there?

I think you helped my argument.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 10:34:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 2:42:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Would you prefer village elders?

I would prefer nothing.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 7:58:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 2:46:37 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Where's the evidence for the claim?

I don't see how law can exist without police, unless your also claiming that law didn't exist often in human history. If there were states though, there was law.

Yeah I should have been more clear about that. Police are a prerequisite to having laws; I support abolishing law in general, on moral grounds. Any state of a meaningful size has had laws and police, so my claim was inappropriate.

With that said, can we say without a doubt that laws are completely necessary in all modern states? I find that most people assume that everybody would be engaged in endless violence if not for laws prohibiting violence and police enforcement to prevent it.

While our current society is obviously in no position for a sudden change, is it fair to wonder if a law-less state could exist? I'd like to have a meaningful discussion on this possibility. The most attractive aspect of capitalism seems to be the aligning of interests between the individual and the community: an individual seeks to better herself, and by doing so, strengthens the community. Laws appear to be a breakdown of this relationship; one sees advantage in acts that damage the community, and therefore a fix must be implemented by an authoritarian institution. Could interests be aligned more perfectly so that no "fixes" are necessary?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 8:06:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 3:15:37 PM, OberHerr wrote:
You underestimate the power of reputation, and fear.

If you hada police force nobody knew existed, then they would be significantly less effective at repelling crime than one that is known to exist.

Crime is a factor of law. There can be no crime in a law-less state.

And, merely because SOME police are suppsidely not effective, does not mean all are. Plus, I think this is simply a case of hating on the police.

Perhaps police are the most valuable thing on Earth, or perhaps they are the most damaging. I don't think the question is ever asked, however, and I want to ask it.

As to the ad hom, I've met some really great people, as well as some really bad people that are officers. My problem is with the institution.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 8:07:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 3:16:53 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Also, most of the issues you bring up have nothing to do with the police, and everything to do with current laws and such.

You believe that police would be more effective with a different set of laws? Any idea what the general layout of those laws might be?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 8:15:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 3:34:59 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/9/2012 3:16:53 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Also, most of the issues you bring up have nothing to do with the police, and everything to do with current laws and such.

"Don't knock the police; they're just following orders!"

One case where reductio ad Naziism is justified; no?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 8:18:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 3:37:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Surely you've heard of the Milgram's experiment on obedience.

I bet I could use that experiment to support abolition of police, more than you could use it to support them...

And surely you realize that based on basic supply and demand, that police officers will always exist no matter what the laws are.

Why does economic thinking trump all other disciplines?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 8:19:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 3:51:18 PM, Mirza wrote:
I actually come from a country that defended itself by principles akin to one in an anarchist society. Could work.

Expound?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 8:20:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 4:16:06 PM, YYW wrote:
Since the dawn of organized society, society has tasked itself with a most incorrigible, tactless and futile endeavor. It has waged, since it's conception, an war on an indomitable force... that of crime. This prohibition on crime has taken many forms; wars on drug crimes, political crimes, petty crime, white collar crime and etc. Surely, the fact that crimes still continue, that criminality remains a problem intrinsic to the human condition, we must end the dark age of oppression of criminals, and in doing so usher in a new era of universal freedom, that is anarchy, where man may act as he pleases.

Laws are what enable man to act as he pleases. Our troops are able to occupy other countries because they are supported by our laws.

--

But all jokes aside, cops are like "great white sharks."

Explain?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 8:36:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I generally agree with you, but it is, in fact, quite against the law to threaten that you will kill someone, and as long as the person you're threatening alleges that you incited fear, and the way you went about that threat can reasonably lead to such fear, then you are guilty of assault, and accordingly, should be arrested.

Just sayin'.

I'll add that although what you said generally follows logically and factually, there are places where the police officers actually uphold their oath, rather than spend their entire careers attempting to assert some sort of abstracted authority.

Before I lived where I live now, I would have never believed this, but local cops are actually most interested in helping citizens rather than assert their authority. To contrast, in New Jersey, I was almost arrested for literally sitting on the curb outside of Blockbuster Video and holding a private cellphone conversation in the middle of New Jersey, but here, the only time I've ever spoken to a cop was when one stopped to help me at the side of the road when my car ran out of gas. He never carded me, and gave me a ride to and from the gas station after helping me push my car to safety.

I guess the moral of that little anecdote is don't let the local douchebags detract from what a police officer can actually be, and what their purpose ideally is.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 8:40:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll add that police authority is given by the people, not by the state. In other words, if the state ceased to acknowledge a criminal justice institution, but the people refuse to ignore it, then that criminal justice authority will remain an authority to those people. However, if the state asserts a given authority and the people reject it,then that authority doesn't exist.

All it requires is enough cooperation. The population of those who did not choose to serve as officers will always outnumber that of those who do.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 9:10:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 4:43:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/9/2012 3:37:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/9/2012 3:34:59 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/9/2012 3:16:53 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Also, most of the issues you bring up have nothing to do with the police, and everything to do with current laws and such.

"Don't knock the police; they're just following orders!"

Surely you've heard of the Milgram's experiment on obedience.

There but for the grace of God go I. Yeah. I think the state is just an epiphenomenon of preexisting exercises of power (which happen to interact/intersect in XYZ manner), so it's that behavior with which I'm concerned, rather than with police as such.

And surely you realize that based on basic supply and demand, that police officers will always exist no matter what the laws are.

That's complete conjecture. Our circumstances are historically contingent--they did not have to be this way, they do not currently have to be this way, nor must they be this way in the future.

There is definitely sense in noting how things have been, but at the same time we must not become ignorant to how they could be. The meat of the argument must become "why" things were that way, and "why" things could be different. Specifically, have laws existed because people found they couldn't live any other way? Or were they put there by rulers to protect their own interests?

There is a particular psychological programming that goes into modern living. One piece of this, here particularly pertinent, is the culture of danger and fear cultivated in response to the humanist/utilitarian project of maximizing everyone's well-being (or whatever you want to call it). Many police functions arise precisely out of an imperative to minimize exposure to danger--hence, TSA in airports to minimize the risk of airborne terror; NSA et al. tapping phones, storing emails, etc. to minimize the danger of "homegrown" terrorism; the military and the CIA deploying domestic surveillance drones to keep an eye perpetually open to spot (and subsequently neutralize) potential threats.
Hell, even something as mundane as banning trans fats is a good example--if we're going to be healthy and free, then we have to minimize our exposure to "bad" substances, even if we have to pass a law and increase policing capacity to make sure that businesses are behaving the way we want them to.

I see the problem as utilitarian as well... We believe we understand the equations but we absolutely do not. We don't know how to measure utility and we certainly don't know how to maximize it.

Our thinking is as follows:
1) Violence is natural and inevitable in society.
2) Police force is an effective deterrent to violence.
.: Police force must be implemented in society.

In order to justify police, we must justify both of these assumptions. My main issue is with the second assumption: how can we be sure that lawlessness is more violent than lawness?

As far as "psychological programming" is concerned, that was precisely the topic that raised my awareness level about law enforcement. Watching Zimbardo's study in particular made me realize that some of the violence we have is not natural at all, but manufactured. How a utilitarian derives a conclusion of "more utility for society" by implementing a prison system is beyond me.

Milgram's experiment, IMO, shows that police are people who ordinarily wouldn't be as dangerous as they currently are.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 10:04:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 8:36:08 PM, Ren wrote:
I generally agree with you, but it is, in fact, quite against the law to threaten that you will kill someone, and as long as the person you're threatening alleges that you incited fear, and the way you went about that threat can reasonably lead to such fear, then you are guilty of assault, and accordingly, should be arrested.

Just sayin'.

Arrested for how long?

I'll add that although what you said generally follows logically and factually, there are places where the police officers actually uphold their oath, rather than spend their entire careers attempting to assert some sort of abstracted authority.

Before I lived where I live now, I would have never believed this, but local cops are actually most interested in helping citizens rather than assert their authority. To contrast, in New Jersey, I was almost arrested for literally sitting on the curb outside of Blockbuster Video and holding a private cellphone conversation in the middle of New Jersey, but here, the only time I've ever spoken to a cop was when one stopped to help me at the side of the road when my car ran out of gas. He never carded me, and gave me a ride to and from the gas station after helping me push my car to safety.

I guess the moral of that little anecdote is don't let the local douchebags detract from what a police officer can actually be

They CAN be great people, and they can be absolutely terrible people.

, and what their purpose ideally is.

Ideally, the police prevent more violence than they create. I find this, frankly, hard to believe.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 10:14:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 8:40:35 PM, Ren wrote:
I'll add that police authority is given by the people, not by the state. In other words, if the state ceased to acknowledge a criminal justice institution, but the people refuse to ignore it, then that criminal justice authority will remain an authority to those people. However, if the state asserts a given authority and the people reject it,then that authority doesn't exist.

All it requires is enough cooperation. The population of those who did not choose to serve as officers will always outnumber that of those who do.

I reject the distinction between "officers" and "civilians" as subjective. Officers take an oath, and have power vested in them by the state. So what? This does not grant them any more natural responsibility than you or I have to be good people. A good person necessarily helps out those who need protection. The badge is nothing but a piece of metal pinned to somebody's chest and when we sacrifice our natural duty to be good people in order to remain consistent with your paradigm of civilianism, we are passing up morality (objective reasoning to do no harm) in order to create an artificial cultural norm which takes its place. Justification of means through perception of utilitarian ends.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.