America without police?

[Who The F R U]

I have always believed they should be held to a higher standard just like the Military.
Unfortunately they get the benefit of the doubt unless they are on video.
Even then they get away with absurd behavior.

Not saying all cop's are bad.
Just the ones who brazenly break the law and waive it in your face when nothing happens.

I.E.
The 6ft+ cop who fly's around in the pot spotter plane laughing about sending 2 old lady's to jail for growing a plant.

And then get's raided for not following the FFL MFG rules and not paying taxes.
But some how still has a ammo mfg company running in St. Helen's and is not in jail.
Thin blue line my bubblegum...............

 

[gimpy51]

Again, they are just us. They should be held to the same standard as everyone else. If they murder, they go to jail. If they screw up badly, they find another line of work. They do at least the minimum over a career with honor, they retire like anyone else.

 

[PaulB47]

It's just too bad that it seems that the majority of police officers seem to feel more empowered by their leash holders will rather than the oath "to support and defend"

Just goes to show what value oaths have. Otherwise, cops are just acting in their own interest, given the incentives they face. Expecting people not to do so is a waste of time.

We created this beast.

No, the ruling class did. Wanted to have their own private armies, paid for by the peons. That's what they got, and it's what they still have. There's no "we" about it. The correct pronoun is "they".

 

[Diamondback]

America without police... hmm... somewhere between the Old West before the Vigilance Committees and 1980s Beirut, my best guess.

 

[gimpy51]

No, the ruling class did. Wanted to have their own private armies, paid for by the peons. That's what they got, and it's what they still have. There's no "we" about it. The correct pronoun is "they".

Huh? The ruling class? We the people have a vote/voice. "We" made the choices to let the Johns protect the whorehouse.

The Republicans represent the 1%.
The Democrats represent another 19%
The rest of us are unrepresented (80%).

We let the few do this to us.

 

[Hybrid Slave]

On the war on drugs...yup big failure there. They did it wrong though IMO. Comparing drugs to alcohol is like apples & oranges, again IMO.

Yeah you'll always have folks who are alcoholics, or even if not true alcoholics, make poor decisions under the influence of alcohol & kill and mame others.

Some of the drugs though are incredibly addictive, even after "only trying it out" once or twice.

Even marijuana (which I'm ok with legalizing), is more x times potent than it was in the 1970's. Addictive? Perhaps, along the same lines as alcohol IMO to some folks, yet far less socially & medically destructive.

Meth, crack, heroin etc on the other hand have no place whatsoever in the recreational realm. Ever.

Take a look at your counties booking photos for the week. I'd wager 50% of those booked are meth. I'd further wager that without meth being available, a high percentage of those folks would be normal members of society. Not meth zombies.

I cannot knock anyone for having good intentions such as wanting to save weak minded people from their own weak selves. But how does the old saying go... "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"?

I very much agree about the dangers involved with the more elicit drugs that you mentioned. I was a teen growing up in ground zero of the drug war during the 80s. I saw police corruption, gang warfare, and plenty of drugs to go around for the asking within a mile radius, anywhere in the five county area, if one knew the right people. But...

...what I'm talking about is personal choice and the accountability for those choices. If some tweeked out goblin or crackhead robs a store or murders someone then charge them for it, period. Whatever substance he was using is irrelevant.

If they make the choice to fry their brains, then I say that it is their choice. I don't want my tax dollars going towards enforcing someone elses' concept of "doing the right thing" because what the crackhead, pothead, prostitute, gambler does, SHORT OF supplying minors, murdering, robbing, raping kidnapping, assaulting, or destroying property IS NONE OF MY DAMN BUSINESS and no damn business of the governments.

The people don't need the government to protect them from their own vices with their own tax dollars. When it comes down to the true criminal end of it, not the consensual end, my bullets aren't going to care what drug they were using in their home or in their alleyway.

History has shown, time and again, that embargoes, prohibitions etc. only open the door to a highly profitable black market. And there will ALWAYS be a plentiful supply of people who are willing to brave whatever risks to capitalize. Just as with gun running or corporate stock investments, "who dares wins". It's simply human nature.

The equation is very simple, yet it perplexes me how people cannot apply the logic. Remove the profitable black market element, and costs drops. When costs drop, the commodity is more easily (and peacefully) obtained without the element of desperation that compels the committing of crime in order to obtain drug money.

At that point, addiction is reduced to nothing more than a PERSONAL PROBLEM, A PERSONAL CHOICE. And the existing police force can now focus it's efforts towards actual crime rather than the consensual activity of legal adults.

Imagine it. After that, then perhaps communities could place more emphasis on smaller numbers of quality educated and conscientious officers rather than quantities of authoritarian ex jocks who behave like they're on some imaginary battlefield.

 

[PaulB47]

somewhere between the Old West before the Vigilance Committees and 1980s Beirut, my best guess.

?

The old west was safer than just about any big city today.
The Not So Wild, Wild West

 

[PaulB47]

Keep in mind that if there are no cops, there is no prosecution for mala prohibita. This factor by itself means a much less violent society. Most violent crime is a result of the drug war.

Actually, being a panarchist, I don't mind if other people think cops are necessary for a decent society. They should have their society, with cops included. More power to ya!

I'd just rather you let us anarchists alone to have our own society without cops. Be sure to carry openly in Anarchyville, because you are on your own when you visit. Ain't no Officer Friendly around to pick up your marbles for ya.

 

[Diamondback]

?

The old west was safer than just about any big city today.
The Not So Wild, Wild West

True... the danger was generally in cowtowns on cattle-drive payday when the crowd of intoxicated out-of-towners was around.

But I'd also bet that part of that was the perception of justice being swift and certain.

 

[Who The F R U]

Keep in mind that if there are no cops, there is no prosecution for mala prohibita. This factor by itself means a much less violent society. Most violent crime is a result of the drug war.

Actually, being a panarchist, I don't mind if other people think cops are necessary for a decent society. They should have their society, with cops included. More power to ya!

I'd just rather you let us anarchists alone to have our own society without cops. Be sure to carry openly in Anarchyville, because you are on your own when you visit. Ain't no Officer Friendly around to pick up your marbles for ya.

Here Here .....................

 

[gimpy51]

I'd just rather you let us anarchists alone to have our own society without cops.

I kinda agree. You (so to speak) can go anywhere you want, outside "my" country. "My" country was set up with rules, laws and cops. Anyone that wants a different system should feel free to go and find one. Know what I mean?

 

[Camelfilter]

I cannot knock anyone for having good intentions such as wanting to save weak minded people from their own weak selves. But how does the old saying go... "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"?

I very much agree about the dangers involved with the more elicit drugs that you mentioned. I was a teen growing up in ground zero of the drug war during the 80s. I saw police corruption, gang warfare, and plenty of drugs to go around for the asking within a mile radius, anywhere in the five county area, if one knew the right people. But...

...what I'm talking about is personal choice and the accountability for those choices. If some tweeked out goblin or crackhead robs a store or murders someone then charge them for it, period. Whatever substance he was using is irrelevant.

If they make the choice to fry their brains, then I say that it is their choice. I don't want my tax dollars going towards enforcing someone elses' concept of "doing the right thing" because what the crackhead, pothead, prostitute, gambler does, SHORT OF supplying minors, murdering, robbing, raping kidnapping, assaulting, or destroying property IS NONE OF MY DAMN BUSINESS and no damn business of the governments.

The people don't need the government to protect them from their own vices with their own tax dollars. When it comes down to the true criminal end of it, not the consensual end, my bullets aren't going to care what drug they were using in their home or in their alleyway.

History has shown, time and again, that embargoes, prohibitions etc. only open the door to a highly profitable black market. And there will ALWAYS be a plentiful supply of people who are willing to brave whatever risks to capitalize. Just as with gun running or corporate stock investments, "who dares wins". It's simply human nature.

The equation is very simple, yet it perplexes me how people cannot apply the logic. Remove the profitable black market element, and costs drops. When costs drop, the commodity is more easily (and peacefully) obtained without the element of desperation that compels the committing of crime in order to obtain drug money.

At that point, addiction is reduced to nothing more than a PERSONAL PROBLEM, A PERSONAL CHOICE. And the existing police force can now focus it's efforts towards actual crime rather than the consensual activity of legal adults.

Imagine it. After that, then perhaps communities could place more emphasis on smaller numbers of quality educated and conscientious officers rather than quantities of authoritarian ex jocks who behave like they're on some imaginary battlefield.

I see what your saying.

It just seems to me that it's more than just a personal choice problem given the highly addictive nature of some of the drugs today. Meth, heroin and cocaine have been around a long time (centuries for heroin / cocaine, decades for Meth). The problem today as I see it, is that the delivery methods & potency are so high currently as to make folks addicted after the first "try".

I'm not talking about kids trying to explore or push boundaries by trying alcohol & or pot, I'm talking about meth, heroin & crack (...is crack even still a social problem?). Heroin and meth absolutely are. Heroin is a huge problem back North East, meth not so much. Yet. Out here, meth is a huge problem, but heroin is catching up.

Again take a look at your county booking / mug shots. All those folks booked for meth possession under 1oz, probably end up with a slap on the wrist. Even the ones who do get actual jail time, the recidivism rate is excruciatingly high. Most of those folks could have been functional members of society. Those are just the ones caught, an extremely small percent I'd wager.

I've never heard of anyone who does meth or heroin socially, as one would drink or smoke pot (or edibles). You know, like having a glass of wine/beer or two with dinner etc.

Given the current social services available to them, the violent crime rate (as a generalization) isn't that high out here. The same type of folks who have no issue smashing your car window for the change on the floor boards today, will have no problem smashing your head on a curb for your pocket stuff to sell when the economy tanks further, and the social services they are accustomed to are no longer funded.

Similarly with home break ins, currently they are mostly just smash & grab type when no ones home. Should the economy tank further, the smash & grab type folks will soon have no issue doing so while folks are home and trying to party. Not my home nor yours I'd wager, but WE would have our legal issues & the biohazard tissue/bodily fluid mess to clean up.

Then there's the tax on our healthcare system. The resources addicts suck up is amazing, the time & attention needed to properly care for them quite litteraly sucks staff & resources from other critical areas. Daily.

 

[PaulB47]

"My" country was set up with rules, laws and cops.

Actually, it wasn't. Cops were introduced around 1850, not 1776. I prefer the pre-1850 solution, the real American one, over the post-1850 one copied from England. In fact, same thing for schools. I like the pre-1840's solution, the American innovation of educational freedom, rather than the post-1840 government school system copied from socialist Prussia. I don't see why home-grown solutions are considered inferior to foreign ones.

Now the rulers want us to copy the Europeans again, in the area of gun control.

History has shown, time and again, that embargoes, prohibitions etc. only open the door to a highly profitable black market.

Not only that. Because those in the black market cannot resort to legitimate means for resolving disputes, they use violent ones. There's your crime...

It just seems to me that it's more than just a personal choice problem given the highly addictive nature of some of the drugs today. Meth, heroin and cocaine have been around a long time (centuries for heroin / cocaine, decades for Meth). The problem today as I see it, is that the delivery methods & potency are so high currently as to make folks addicted after the first "try".

Yet another result of the drug war. Back in the old days you could buy laudanum in the corner drug store. What was wrong with that?

Most of those folks could have been functional members of society.

Yeah, jail time does not help them much either, does it?

Then there's the tax on our healthcare system. The resources addicts suck up is amazing, the time & attention needed to properly care for them quite litteraly sucks staff & resources from other critical areas. Daily.

You are talking about bad things that happen in the current situation (i.e., with the War on Drugs). Without it, these problems wouldn't have shown up. As to health care, that is a separate issue. With either fascist health care (pre-Obamacare) or socialist health care (Obamacare), you are going to see overconsumption and high costs. If you don't like that, the only way out is to get government out of it entirely.

 

[rp243]

Take policing back to being a called service much like the fire department operates. If there is a crime you have someone to call, you don't have officers out there actively looking for crime or potential crime. We don't see fire crews slowly rolling down the streets looking for "potential" fires.
Perhaps (and I do mean perhaps) the response time would be faster if your police were waiting for the opportunity to respond to a genuine request for help rather than actively questioning others about the potential that they have violated a rule.

I see the value in a police force, I just think they should wait to be called to investigate something that has caused harm to another.

Russ

In light of recent events I found this thread from 4 yeas ago interesting.

 

[The B]

I'll plug this here, and I'm sure I'll expand elsewhere -

The solution in my estimation is to disband municipal police departments and put 100% of law enforcement back in the hands of the sheriff. He's accountable to the voters directly, therefore his troops will be as well.

Super simple, more effective on multiple levels, and will appease the bubblegum out of many.

 

[PaulB47]

So yeah, how would an America without police look to you?

About like America looked before the 1850's, when policing was adopted from England.

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/library/AreCopsConstitutional.pdf

I know police are caught in the middle of a bad situation, and have to routinely interact with the worst scum humanity has to offer. But one thing I have learned over the decades: "Given enough time, all human institutions turn to bubblegum." The institution of policing, much like other American institutions, is rotten to the core. It's time to shut it down and re-do it.

A couple of things to keep in mind: without police, there would be no gun control. Policing is what enables gun control. And let's face it, if the confiscation order came down, the police (at least most of the city cops) would be enforcing it. Every dictator the world has ever seen, was based either on police or military support.

The best policeman is the armed victim. Let that person deal with the criminal attack; and after he or she has done so, stop second-guessing what he or she did when under attack. For those who can't or won't defend themselves, let them buy their protection on the open market. And yes, there WILL be a healthy market for protection services.

 

[CamoDeafie]

About like America looked before the 1850's, when policing was adopted from England.

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/library/AreCopsConstitutional.pdf

Actually, the role and office of a Sheriff and their deputies predate the city/state police by quite a bit... going farther back, back before the legends of Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham...

 

[Ura-Ki]

Policing for profit, that's the problem!