The police exist to maintain and protect existing power structures, including the police themselves.
A lot starts making more sense in that context.
Police exist because they were funded by governments. They are the way they are because of the various incentives, organizational politics, their day-to-day experiences on the job, and the minds of the people who staff them. Rather than declaring them part of a fascist plot, why not just try to think about where improvements can be made?
> Rather than declaring them part of a fascist plot, why not just try to think about where improvements can be made?
The first step to fixing a system is to understand it. Taking a valid description and twisting it in to an accusation of a "fascist plot" is a great way to ensure you will never understand the system in the way which is required to actually improve it.
But the description "police exist to enforce existing power structures" implies that the power structures are illegitimate, which suggests that the police are as well, which in turn suggests we should tear it all down and start over.
But I've never seen anyone who 1) recommends tearing everything down and 2) has a realistic (or even defined) plan to rebuild it.
You're right about number 2, though.
supports removing funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources. Activists who use the phrase may do so with varying intentions; some seek modest reductions, while others argue for full divestment as a step toward the abolition of contemporary police services. Activists who support the defunding of police departments often argue that investing in community programs could provide a better crime deterrent for communities; funds would go toward addressing social issues, like poverty, homelessness, and mental disorders.
They'd get a lot more support if they had gone with "Black Lives Matter Too!" and "Reform the Police" or some other phrase that actually suggested their actual desires.
There's nothing the left can do about intentional bad faith representation of their messaging, that's just par for the course.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...
Edit: you're also very wrong about number 2, you just haven't been exposed to people proposing solutions.
Here is a 20 year old very famous book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_Prisons_Obsolete%3F?wprov=...
I think this is fairly evident, yes.
> which in turn suggests we should tear it all down and start over.
Well it certainly suggests something should be done. Tearing it all down seems like a straw man though. Certain aspects of it should certainly be torn down.
> But I've never seen anyone who 1) recommends tearing everything down and 2) has a realistic (or even defined) plan to rebuild it.
I do think it's very funny when people use their own ignorance as evidence for an argument.
Your own argument comes from "I think this is fairly evident" (at the top of your post). How is that different from ignorance?
That's the picture as it exists today. If you don't see existing power structures anywhere in that picture, you may need [new] glasses.
This is a good point. Fascism is made up and has never existed, and it certainly has never been created or perpetuated by police. It is a mystery why anyone would make a statement otherwise when the better option of discussing theoretical incremental change is on the table.
Going to police stations and identifying issues with them, and describing them in apolitical terms, and asking the police chief to consider and act on them, and voting him or her out if they don't act on them, is more 'revolutionary' than standing outside their office with 'ACAB' posters.
I'm reminded of the line about how hard it is to get someone to understand something when their livelihood depends on their NOT understanding it.
I like that saying, too. But not sure it applies here -- there are huge numbers of lawyers who like talking about 'power structures.' It may have been invented by us. We lawyers invented, for example, critical race theory.
You could be right, though, maybe I am biased. I'd be interested to learn how.
Congrats, you just provided a description of "power structures". Now you know.
> Rather than declaring them part of a fascist plot
Especially as a lawyer, you should know better than to put words in someone else's mouth - it leads to people distrusting what you say. I'll certainly be more closely checking what you're replying to from now on...
The problem with a phrase like 'power structures' is people who use it get to define it to be whatever they want it to be. You're telling me here that it means 'incentives and organizational politics' (factors that affect any group of humans, regardless of the political 'power' of the group's constituents). But other places I see definitions like 'banks' or 'rich people.'
>Especially as a lawyer, you should know better than to put words in someone else's mouth - it leads to people distrusting what you say. I'll certainly be more closely checking what you're replying to from now on...
That's my reaction when someone tells me I'm a part of a power structure -- they're effectively calling me a fascist. I think it's a fair reaction given the way political conversations go these ways. I appreciate your attention to close reading, though, and am genuinely sorry to hear you don't trust my commentary.
Police has lots of problems in USA. But go live in the country without effective police force first, and then talk about how police isn’t here to enforce laws and justice.
Police here are not interested in justice, and this is trivial to prove based on their behavior.
Courts have also ruled that police have no duty to protect citizens.
Policing in the US is fundamentally broken. That there exist places with worse policing problems does not mean ours are not serious, foundational, and endemic.
Is it? There are bad stories, sure. Horrible ones, yes. Police officers who should be in jail for life - yes!
But there’s also a tons of good stories, that just don’t get reported, because they don’t generate outrage and clicks.
Cops do what is easy, by and large. The overriding motivations in the job do not align with the values that the public would actually WANT from a police force. They are not required to "protect and serve," and have actually argued in court (and won!) that they are not required to protect anyone.
They are protected by a union with absurdly outsized power, which prevents real accountability in all but the most egregious cases. These unions and their fellow-travelers work hard to prevent common-sense recordkeeping on national violent incidents by cops, and to avoid any kind of national peace officer licensing and certification that would keep bad cops "fired" by one city from just drifting to the next town over and continuing their behavior.
Cops, in the US, are part of the problem.
Police can have big problems, that you mention, and at the same time can be interested in justice.
Are software engineers force of evil, because of lot of them work for companies that disregard privacy and make billions of dollars off it? And are not required by law to follow ethical standards?
I feel like you're either very naive about American policing, or you are unwilling to engage with this in good faith, so I'm going to bow out here -- but your comparison is honestly risible.
I’m agreeing from a start, that USA police has tons of issues. But it’s not a lawless institution. Really, go live in a country without effective policing and then we can talk if USA police is only bringing lawlessness to the table.
You can not have a free society without a populace taking responsibility for their own. There is a reason the slogan "freedom isn't free", was a big thing in America til just a generation or two ago. The second you start delegating things like safety to the gov you've lost.
Just look at modern America, a giant portion of folks cannot survive without gov assistance now, and look where that got us. How can you oppose a corrupt gov if you cannot even survive without it?
Unless you are so brainwashed (as many still are) that you think that the total lack of privacy and agency in modern America is both good, and somehow fitting to the intent of the Constitution as written.
Doesn't that encourage vigilanteism?
Like these jackasses[0]. You want to give these people the right to arbitrarily arrest, detain and kill because two centuries ago Thomas Jefferson saw the horrors of the French Revolution, got the biggest boner of his life and thought "how about that, but a whole country, all the time?"
No thank you. I don't trust the cops but I trust my fellow armed Americans even less. At least the police, ostensibly, have a system they have to abide by other than a piece of parchment saying "everyone gets as many guns as they want, no questions asked." What you're advocating is essentially gang warfare.
Also, "freedom isn't free" became popular as a meme from South Park making fun of the wave of jingoistic, patriotic BS songs after 9/11.
It costs a buck o'five, by the way.
Boomers are more than “a generation or two ago.”
Please bring data when making bold assertions. You are making the assertion: "a majority of people agree with the statement: 'a total lack of privacy and agency in modern America are both good'" - without data, you don't know and it is best left unsaid. It's individuals all the way down and you don't know the context and experiences of others. Again, without data, nobody knows.
-------------
Let's move along. I found this to be really interesting:
> Well, if you are talking about the United States and the supposed Supreme Law of the Land that nobody seems to be too well educated on nowadays, actually it is the job of local militia to defend and enforce civil order
Where does that idea come from? Honest question. Where can I read more about that?
----------------
Generally to understand US history and its laws, my understanding is you need to look to British history and British Common law.
"During the War of 1812, state militias were intended to be the primary fighting force. Unfortunately, while militiamen showed willingness to fight, they were untrained, undisciplined, and ill-equipped." [1]
This is to say the militia was intended to be able to come together in aggregate to form an army.
Going further back to British history:
"Under Elizabeth the English militia system developed still farther; indeed, it was during her reign that the phrase "militia" was first used to describe the concept of a universally armed people ready to stand in defense of their nation" [2]
Resource ([2]) is a fantastic read and gives a very compelling rationale why the 2nd amendment was actually intended as an individual right to bear arms rather than just the right to have well regulated militias. I think you'll find it interesting.
Overall, the rights to religion, the right of assembly and the right to bear arms were very important to the US constitional assembly because this had happened a hundred years prior under a British King:
> Following Cromwell's death, the English were more than happy to accept back the son of the late Charles, Charles II, as monarch. Charles II promptly dissolved the army, offering full pay plus a (p.50)bonus from his own finances, and guaranteeing work on public works projects for the demobilized troops.[31] He also sought to secure himself by a variety of legislation which people in Parliament, in their haste to welcome the end of Puritan rule, did not recognize as dictatorial. In 1661 and 1662 he expanded the definition of treason, imposed press censorship, restricted practice of religion by Puritans and others and leveled the protective walls of many towns which had sided with Parliament.[32] Instructions were also issued to the lord's lieutenant to form special militia units out of volunteers of favorable political views, "the officers to be numerous, disaffected persons watched and not allowed to assemble, and their arms seized...." [2]
In sum, the militias were intended as the backbone of a citizen army. That is very much in line with the idea of a government for the people and by the people. These ideas make a lot of sense to me, but I personally question their applicability following the Industrial Revolution.
In sum, the first and second amendment essentially codify that a King can't the rights away of assembly, religion or bearing arms from anyone, regardless of whether they follow the same religion as the king or agree politically with the king or not.
If you want some solid reasoning for why the 2nd amendment is an individual right, do check out [2]. [2] was a very convincing read for me and before reading it I disagreed with the statement that the 2nd amendment guaranteed an individual right to bear arms.
[1] https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_military_history/7/#
[2] https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhardy.html*
* [2] is clearly slanted and has an agenda, but the history and research seem pretty solid; I was swayed to its point of view.
I don't really care if you believe me or not.
I mean. Look at: Paw Patrol, Miami Vice, Tokyo Vice, the Wire, Criminal Minds, Chicago PD, Southland, Bosch, Law and Order: all of them, law and Order: all of them, CSI: all of them, Luther, The Shield, Reno 911, etc.
I mean this list is just from the top of my head.
We are being indoctrinated in our image of the police. Some rotten apples are shown, but in the end they are always The Good Guys.
The alternative to a state monopoly on violence is mob rule. You can call that state entity whatever you want, police, militia, whatever. But some regulated construct needs to exist.
If you can’t separate that concept from the current model of policing it’s unlikely we can have an interesting conversation.
Like, think of any mass social protest movement. Who is the primary "boots-on-the-ground" opposition? It is always the police. It will always be the police. That's what they're there for.
Like, what exactly is “mob rule”? Why am I supposed to fear it? Why is it worse than today’s system of rule by a powerful unaccountable minority?
Why is it per se good for the police to enforce laws and fight crime? Those are both social constructs that can target anyone we want them to. 60 years ago, they would have prevented me from marrying my wife; 90 years ago, they would have prevented me from fleeing genocide.
What happens in your ideal future state if the rich and powerful refuse to change unjust laws? If people rise up against oppression, what happens?
The government suspects someone of committing a crime? File charges and bring them to court.
At the very least, CAF should require a warrant. Cops should not be able to seize assets as part of a typical traffic stop.
I just can't see how CAF has survived so long without being ruled a violation of our Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.