The police thread (not the band)

To start with, police. I'm for them. They may or may not be necessary to maintain a quality of live close to the one we've achieved, but they are necessary for the society we live in. To rid ourselves of them is impractical and likely impossible. Cops exist and will exist for the foreseeable future. Best learn how to wok the system.

On a more conceptual level, what do you see a society without police looking like Kyle?

Next, Why pre-civilization without cops can't be compared to post-civilization without cops. When man-kind was creating language and learning how to work in groups all we really had to guide us as far as morals was biology, which in mammals says, don't kill your own species if you can help it. More specifically, don't kill your family unit. It's easy to see how that could cause problems, especially when sociopaths are added to the picture. Now a days we've been socially drilled for thousands of years to not kill, rape or steal. That by itself won't prevent "crimes" but it will give us a better guide. We are also more accustomed to different ethnic groups and religions so wars over that will be less common. I'm not saying we have gotten to the point where every one will just help their neighbor just because it will help the greater good but we are closer.

Why third world nations cannot be compared to nations without police. Those nations have police but they are corrupt and underfunded. The people cannot protect themselves because they will need to fight the criminals and the police the criminals own. Watch City of God for an example of how this plays out. I don't know how much of the movie is changed for the stories sake, but the point is still valid.

Guns. I'm for them. Search Gun Town for an example of why guns should not be blamed. Some general points I want to make. Switzerland has one tenth of the gun homicides per capita of the USA(looked up stats on wiki and did the math myself). It's mandatory for Swiss citizens to own and practice use with guns(assault riffles I believe). While gun control works in Britain due to its small size, lack of bordering countries, distance from gun smuggling capitals, and lack of history of gun ownership, the same model cannot be applied elsewhere. It's worth noting that gun crime is rising in Britain, but so are other crimes and it may not be related to gun prohibition. It's also worth noting that no amount of gun laws will prevent a dedicated criminal from getting a gun and most criminals involved in the drug trade will treat guns as a must have investment.

The second amendment. It wasn't created for hunters or even for personal protection. It was written so that citizens could maintain their own army separate from any the government might form. One theory is this was to keep the government in line and that if they ever got too restrictive, revolution. Sadly that's not a viable option anymore.

edit. cops with guns. There is no reason for the average cop to carry more than a taser and a baton. Tasers will incapacitate anyone regardless of the drugs they are on. In cases where cops are facing gun carrying criminals, they can have call for backup to come with guns.

 

Please don't cite information you haven't even bothered to google or wikipedia.

We have our fair share of school shootings, as does Finland, you know, the other country with lots of guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe

And yet, look at that, no shootings in France, and everyone there owns a gun. Hell, they all march with their guns during Bastille day.

Find another theory.

 

Much like this one. Like you said, we have all had 'good vs evil' forced down our throats enough that most people will continue the same, so long as their needs are met. Food, water, shelter, feeling of safety/security. Removing police only affects the last one, which can be replaced with proper self defence training or community efforts.

Again, you cite 'lear to work the system' working the system means finding a way to make laws apply differently to you (versus the average citizen). Why continue to have police if they continue to selectivly enforce laws? I steal $1000 from my job, the police show up and I go to jail. I steal 100,000,000 from my publicly owned/traded coropration, no police are called and I get new golfing buddies and connections in the Caymen Islands.

The police are the enforcement arm of a judicial system which only oppresses the lower calsses. Yet WE ALL PAY THEM TO DO THIS. It is madness. I can do a better job of protecting my own property and life; I work for free. (I know this as I have done it).


Third world nations are a bad example because they lack the means to ensure their population's needs are met (food, water, shelter, safety). People join warlords because the warlords provide the means to filling their needs. Warlordism is not the only way out. See any ghetto or barrio for a working example. Before you play the 'gang violence' card, keep in mind that the gangs are effectivly citizen police forces, protecting their homes from outside invaders. Usually there is a balance and very little violence between groups (when a gang changes leaders you will see a spike in power related fighting).

 

I'd like to point out we don't selectively enforce laws. The reason it may seem that way is because our law enforcement system is extremely decentralized. There are so many levels of law enforcement (town, city, county, state, federal) and most authorities operate their own forces, which have different department and local policies. We're we to consolidate our police forces into a more centralized organization we'd probably lose that inconsistency (I've been saying we should do it for years, but of course, there's costs and everyone only thinks in short term costs and never really considers that long term costs might be cut by taking a short term hit).

I'm gonna have to disagree. The Judicial system and the law enforcement system are not connected (understand the terms Executive and Judicial branches of government). They in no way answer to the same people (save for the voters supposedly). The Judicial system's criminal side is very neutral here. People don't really go prison much anymore unless there is enough evidence to prove they did whatever they're being punished for.

And a guy who steals $100,000 and gets away with it? Who? I'm pretty sure Arthur Anderson and Jeffry Skilling didn't, and the big hedge fund guy we just convicted (I forget his name) didn't get away with it either. We convict people for corporate misconduct all the time. There are dozens of cases for it every year.

Not true. Most of the nations in the world save for a few have the resources (Chad is notable for having practically nothing by means of resources). In these nations, most people are capable of providing basic needs like water, food, and shelter for themselves. Most communities in the world are capable of meeting all their basic needs. Third world doesn't mean you're living in a box in the middle of no where. They have the resources, the availability of basic needs isn't the problem in most of them. The absence of modern convenience is the only reason we call them third-world nations and most of those people live in the same way we would have centuries ago. They are fully capable of surviving but struggle to do so because certain groups (warlords) make it difficult. It's of course more complicated than that (lots of economics involved). The problems they face are mostly a result of internal strife where warlords tend to take all their resources. The problem isn't that the government can't provide. The problem is that there are people taking what other groups need to survive and no one is available to stop them or those who should stop them don't have the power to do so.

Most people in the US don't know how lucky they are. I think compared to the constant threat of mean breaking into your home and killing you because you aren't working hard enough or because you took a little extra food for your family (since the warlord controls at that stuff), paying a few hundred dollars for a speeding ticket is nonsense... but then again human beings as social as they are are inherently selfish and always want more than they have, which is kind of why nations without enforcement of rule of law fall apart. It's the reason communism collapsed as a political system.

People do join warlords to meet their needs because warlords have taken control of everything via force and there is no means by which to stop them from doing so. Third world countries are excellent examples! Of course, if you'd prefer that system you could move to Cambodia I suppose (be warned, don't do what the warlord says and he'll probably kill you). Don't portray the chaos these nations suffer as "not that bad." They are very bad and rape, murder, and theft by the warlords and cartels is the primary problem many of those nations face internally. These things happen because the government's lack any means of enforcing a rule of law, and only have enough resources to protect key locations and they can barely pay their police forces as it is, so they have internal corruption problems all over.

... You're joking, right? That was like 150 years ago when the first "gangs" formed in New York. These days all most gangs do is steal, sell drugs/illegal firearms, operate prostitution rings, and haggle people for "protection" money. The only citizen police forces you find are called neighborhood watches. Don't confuse them with gangs who kill their own members almost as often as they kill other people. EDIT: This of course refers to gangs as they are called in the US. I think the UK uses the word for something else that's not so negative.

 

Not true. The police enforce laws (hence the term 'law enforcement officer').

Yeah, they occasionally get convinced. Then they work a deal and receive a 5 year, minimum security sentence, with the option for parole at 1.5 years. You keep the money and are fine in no time flat.
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/09/26/fastowprisonsentence.html <--- 5 years
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/4859848.html <--- 2 years

Skillings recieved 24 years, and that was the 2nd longest sentence in the history of corporate fraud.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102300287.html

I knew a girl that received a 16 year sentence for stealing $100 from an old woman to buy drugs with.

Again you contradict yourself. Yes, many third world nations have the resources available, but they are taken by waring factions. This FORCES people to either join or die. If people had the means to defend themselves, this problem goes away. Break the cycle, give everyone a gun. (lord knows we have enough to do it.)

Lazy people wanting to get by without doing any work I suppose. Not really on point however.

2 points here:
1) No, you cannot simply leave if you dislike the rules. This is not the company picnic. You are stuck in your nation unless you have lots of resources and time.

2) You mean that in some nations, the police (who re corrupt) break laws and oppress the people? Say it ain't so! Sounds like the people would be better off defending themselves in gang style settings (see City of God for a working example)

No. Fat bloated gangs, like unions, get greedy and oppress the people they originally were protecting. Then people shift to support new groups, and the big gangs collapse. Power vacuum, lots of fighting, stuff settles down and a few years of peace are enjoyed. Unless the police intervene and affect the balance for their own good (this happens a lot. Look into FBI involvement in the mob)

 

Have you ever taken a civics class? Police don't work for the courts. They work for the executive branch of the respective principality in the US, and the courts work for another. They aren't answering to one another. The police enforce laws, but they do not determine the punishment of offenders which is why checks and balances was put into place. Likewise the people who make the laws are also a separate force, and the police and courts do not answer to them. They system is broken down in a division of roles mean to avoid the wide abuse of power. The courts and the police are separate.

I wonder what sweet deal got them such short sentences. I know for a fact Mr. 2 Year got a deal for testimony which made convicting the others much easier (he also pleaded guilty which in nearly every way gets you shorter sentences). The US court system doesn't have the money to do everything in it's power. They need to get cases done and out to move on to others, or they'll never get anything done. A 2 year sentence is better than no sentence. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Fastow did the same. Maybe they didn't get full terms, but they're serving time, and at least one of them helped put Skilling the point man of the whole Enron fiasco in his 24 year sentence.

I know. That's why I deleted it in editing. Sometimes stuff pops in my head and goes on the screen XD.

In no way is what I said a contradiction. You claimed the resources aren't available because the government can't provide them. I claimed the resources are available, but people are stealing them. That's not contradiction it's a counterpoint.

We have that in the US. They're called cops aka police officers. If you want to put authority in the hands of people you will only get an even more inconsistent application of law and justice. Who in such a system determines crimes, who determines accountability, and who determines standards of procedure that give as many people as fair a chance as possible. You won't get it in a do it yourself system as I've already pointed out. It might be manageable in very small groups but for a large group like New York City or Los Angeles it would be complete chaos. We need a standardized system by which to handle these things, which we have. The only reason for inconsistency in applications of law enforcement is the result of the US's extremely fractionalized system of organizing it's police forces, who have different priorities and problems they deal with.

I'm afraid I still don't see the point. It's a known fact that you need a in place system to enforce a rule of law, aka a police force. Simply telling people they can deal with it on their own creates chaos and the absence of a means of enforcement causes civilization to collapse (Rome, Holy Roman Empire, Imperial Russia, Germany suffered it for a short period of time at the end of WWI when it's government fell apart). Again, point out that everything you seem to dislike isn't the result of the police. It's the laws they enforce and the means by which they enforce it (which ironically are also laws). Because our system is fractionalized at the level of speeding tickets and drugs you often point out we have a wide range of results in how the laws are followed.

Personally I've been saying we need to centralize our law enforcement system for years, but of course, no one really ever cares what I think XD. I've mostly given up on the world ever getting better (It really will take something along the lines of the unending power of Christ to do it...). And even if the problem is the police we don't make things better by getting rid of them. We let IAB lose on their butts and restructure the organization to work as we want it too. That won't happen here though cause as far as I know the majority of people are satisfied with our police forces as a whole save in some of the most crime ridden areas of the States.

That doesn't solve the problem that makes it worse! First off, I doubt the local village would have the courage to try and overthrow the guy with an army, and second, that doesn't change anything. You simply change the balance of power. Without an effective means of standardizing the application of order on some scale all you have is civil war.

Those forces are corrupt because the money to pay the police is unavailable and they end up going for other means of income. Don't compare US police to those in nations where they barely exist. There's a huge difference.

Cidade de Deus? What are you talking about. That section of Rio was organized and built by the Guanabara government to remove shanty towns, aka ghettos, from the city and get the population into higher quality housing. I doubt it's not policed. I assume you've confused the real city with the film which is fiction I remind you. And in the end, they start killing drug dealers to take control of their drug rings! Yeah, they're the guys we want instead of cops. EDIT: Now that I think of it the movie is a great example of what we don't want to happen XD. It was pretty much everyone running around and killing each other to gain revenge or more power. People can't be trusted to directly enforce their own laws. Setting up an organized for to do it is far more efficient and effective.

Where's this come from? So the Crips are going to go away soon after 40 years of crime? Guess the Bloods will quit too once their supposed nemesis is gone. Don't be silly. The mob operated money laundering, stealing, assassination, and all other kinds of chaos. Chicago was nearly a war zone because of mob wars in the 20's well into the 30's (and no they actually tend to fight with eachother more than they fight with police and tend to get citizens caught in the crossfire). Gangs don't protect anything but they're own interests and have a tendency to kill people who get in the way. They're the local version of warlords really.

I agree about the Unions though. Greedy jerks are more trouble than they're worth (Ironically in Britain the first Unions were called gangs XD).

 

*raises hands*

I can't speak for overpowering two-three people or as such, but firing is not the only method of dismissing large scale demonstrations and strikes. Tear-gas bombs are an even more effective method, and it's not even fatal.

 

Have you ever heard of hamolot?

It's a way of self protection much like you offered in which everyone gets a gun and everyone takes care of their own. It was the way Arabs in the region settled things before the foundation of the state of Israel and the results were not optimal.

Look at your sister's stalker as an example. If there was no police around then once you caught him there would have been no police to take him to, so then what?

Let's say you took the least violent solution and gave him a warning, now let's say he came back a night later and did something worse then stalking.

So let's say you kill him, now let's say his family doesn't like that so they pick up their guns and kill you.

Are you starting to see the cycle here? Blood feuds, unjust punishment, constant fear for your family. This is what self policing brings.

When we founded this country and the police was formed the blood feuds stopped. Why? Because there was now an objective body that said: "look i don't care who started this, but killing is a crime and if you keep doing it, we will arrest you all."

That's the power of the police, it's an objective body in the interest of the law, not your personal interest and there has to be someone that has the laws beast interest in mind, because the law is for everyone's best interest.

true that.

I can't speak for anyone else, but in Israel cops in riot squads come equipped with ltl (less then lethal) ammunition.

 

our point of view. So here are a bunch of site stating facts. I could do this all day, and have enough of these to load a whole thread. Some supporting, some not. There is a bunch of info. I would also like you to know that I am not TARGETING Britian/England, it has been brought up, and I am answering. I don't wish to offend anyone.

If you read some of these you will realize that the facts state that citizens having guns actually helps law enforcement, because it reduces the crime rates. FACT! Some of them also tell of the increase in crime following gun bans.

I think that if all law abiding citzens did there part to help law enforcement and not hider it that they would do a lot better job. Which as a whole will never happen.

I also was watching, I think the history channel, and they were doing a thing on biker gangs in America. There are actually rebuilding their ranks, because there is less law enforcment than there was before 9-11. Because all the money is going for nation security instead of actually fighting crime. So all organized crime might be set for an increase.

Personally I think criminals will think twice about attacking people if they don't know if they are gonna pull a gun and fight back. Everyone has the right to have the means to defend themselves.



http://www.nranews.com/article.aspx?article=88

http://www.kc3.com/CCWSTATS.html

http://www.ohioccw.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3552&Itemid=67 <------- Where I live.

http://www.nashinteractive.com/sites/agsfoundation/s_conceal.html

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3574822.html

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/story/Illinois-Concealed-Weapon-Carry-Debate/60qJFvzI_UCJggUa0XKPZQ.cspx

http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/chapter_1/evaluatinggunpolicy.pdf

http://www.securityandsafetysupply.com/news/news14.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_guns_less_crime

http://gunowners.org/op0310.htm <----Talks about Great Britian's soar in crime after gun ban.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/10/1020.php <-------Gun crime increasing in Great Britian.

 

I hate to double post, so sorry.

I hunt and there is a good reason for it where I live. We have a lot of white tail deer. If we didn't hunt and keep the population under control then there would be starving animals. Not to meantion the damage to crops and people getting injured in car accidents when they hit a deer. There is also an increased risk of spreading disease if the population gets to large. The county I live in has the large number of deer harvested in our state. Exception of the last couple years, where the weather hasn't been good during the actual hunting season.

Before you say hunters are cruel, we are the beginners of animal preservation and conservation.

Also, if there wasn't a hunting season and there was more accidents there would be an even greater strain on local law enforcement. They need to make a report for the insurance companies, and they also have to deal with the animals that are laying in the road.

Where I live we don't have a large police force. We have a local Sherif. The State Highway Patrol, does most of our ticketing, and it does agrivate us.

Furthermore on law enforcement. The state capital Columbus, is taking some serious cut backs on their police force and crime is already rising. It is tough for cops to do their job, when there is too much to do on their own.

 

This was posted several pages back, but I can't really comment on whether or not I think police forces should be done away with, so I'm commenting on this...

I have NEVER been given a warning after being pulled over. I got cited in a car accident where the other driver ran a red light, I have 3 speeding tickets and one ticket for running a stop sign (which I stopped at...). Most of my tickets come from the days when I delivered pizza, and each cop that pulled me over while I had my car topper on made snide comments about me hurrying so I could get a good tip. I'm not denying that I was speeding, but I WAS moving with the flow of traffic, and I do think it's a little ridiculous that police officers chose to pull me over instead of someone else purely because they knew I was delivering a pizza and assumed that was why I was speeding (I'm a girl. We get good tips no matter how long it takes to get the pizza there.)

My sister, on the other hand, who has been driving for three years, has probably gotten pulled over upwards of ten times for unsafe driving (and I've been in the car with her when she was driving...she's scary), but has only gotten ONE ticket, and that was for going 40 mph in a 30 zone. It's interesting to me that I can be driving with the flow of traffic and get a ticket because I have a Papa John's car topper on my car, but she can weave in and out of traffic going 20 mph over the speed limit and cut off a cop, and she gets off with a warning...hmmm...

I agree that letting people off with a warning is special treatment, and I would like to know how it is decided whether you warn someone or write them a ticket. Were the officers who let my sister off just feeling extra charitable that day? Or were the officers who pulled me over just having a bad day? If police officers were more consistent, maybe people would take traffic laws more seriously, and then they wouldn't have to spend so much time sitting behind bushes at the side of the road with a radar gun...

 

That will just create unending civil war. First world countries are notoriously bad at reconciling our differences and we have at least pretensions at civilization.

On the first point, that has always really bothered me. If I choose to give state secrets to Israel I'm a traitor and can be executed, but I've never agreed to be a US citizen. I was simply born one and since I could talk I've been forced to pledge allegiance without ever understanding what it means. I haven't renounced my citizenship yet because for the most part I like my country, but I don't like that I wasn't given a choice. I've always thought that when a person turns 18 they should be forced to serve their country(either domestically or for the military) if they want to be citizens. That gives them a choice and forces them to work for the privileges they receive. Not gonna happen though.

On the second point, City of God is not a working example. The region was much worse during the gang warfare. They suffered from all the problems from before the gangs and now had to deal with daily shootings as well.

Is a 2 year sentence really better than none? The guy got away with it for all practical purposes. The fact that one of them got 24 years doesn't make up for it in my opinion. People will continue to scam if they think they get away with it. I would rather see them all get 5 to 10 in general population with the gangsters, pushers, pimps, rapists, thieves, and murderers. That might deter them.

We wouldn't have a system that is fair but we don't have a fair system now. What we have may be closer but if it doesn't quite get there is it really worth it? I like the idea of the strong survive. Maybe that's because I think I have the qualities that will make it in such a system but I recognize I might not make it. I would rather cull the herd a bit. Humanity seems to think we need to protect the weak and stupid. Why should we if it is the cost of the more suited to survive?

[/QUOTE]
Cidade de Deus? ...*snip*.. I assume you've confused the real city with the film which is fiction I remind you./QUOTE]
Well it was based on a true story so not quite a fiction.

Well they could bring the offender before his friends and family and ask them what they propose. One option is off the bastard and pay the family for their loss. It worked pretty well back in the day.

It can't function like this one. Our society will naturally degenerate in the beginning. So what will rise up to replace it? We might keep the a system of judges to bring grievances before. People will have to enact the judgement themselves but it brings a bit of impartiality to it. I think to properly envision such a society you would need to try and predict the series of events after the end of the police force and perhaps the mechanism for such a dissolution.


[/QUOTE]Again, you cite 'lear to work the system' working the system means finding a way to make laws apply differently to you (versus the average citizen). Why continue to have police if they continue to selectivly enforce laws? I steal $1000 from my job, the police show up and I go to jail. I steal 100,000,000 from my publicly owned/traded coropration, no police are called and I get new golfing buddies and connections in the Caymen Islands.[/QUOTE]

Well that has to do with how good of a thief you are. I meant learn the laws, learn the customs, learn how things get passed on up, and learn how to mollify cops. You learn to talk to your boss at work or a salesman when you want to make a deal, so why not learn to talk to guys with guns and cuffs?

[/QUOTE]The police are the enforcement arm of a judicial system which only oppresses the lower calsses. [/QUOTE]
It may oppress the lower class but less so than they have been oppressed in the past without the laws that protect them. Do we still need the judicial branch or the executive branch to keep people following the laws? We won't know until they disappear, which won't happen. It also does many things beside oppressing the lower class. Examples include murder trials, class action suits, and anti-trust law suits.

This is a very good idea. If you ever find a politician supporting it, let me know.

 

Sorry, but I do have an opinion that we should leave as much to nature as possible. If the numbers grow and the food goes down, then the population should decrease again, as is natures way. Also, I'm sure if the organisation (I hope there is one and it's not just open to anyone) worked hard enough they could develop a breeding control system if it was *really* bad, which to be honest, although still interferring with 'natures way' it's alot nicer than just brutally shooting them down.

I really dont believe in hunting, unless you were in the middle of nowhere and had absolutely no choice but to hunt to survive. That's fine - because that would be natural. I dont think hunting in a wealthy capitalist country is excusable or acceptable. There's no shortage of food and if, like you say, they have the problem of overpopulation, then they should set in place a system for breeding and controlling the developement of animals (which as i said before would still be interferring with nature but much better than killing).

Nature has been managing fine for millions of years before we came along - people forget that we invaded their land, not the other way around.
The only reason people shoot rather than put a system in place (or leave it alone) is because shooting is quicker and more cost effective. That doesn't make it moral, or acceptable in my opinion.

^ Please understand that's my opinion, not a personal attack on you, or your home, or anyone else who hunts.


(Sorry for going way off topic! Back to police!)

 

There are two goals in the execution of justice: Punishment, and discouraging future misdoing. He may have gotten a two year sentence but he got fined a lot of money. Furthermore he probably will never commit corporate fraud ever again because now that he has this conviction no one will ever hire him again. His career is over, he's already in retirement. Punishment was given, and reduced when he agreed to plead guilty and testify against others, and the chances he'll commit an offense again have dropped drastically since he no longer has the resources to commit the offense again. Effectively justice in that case was done.

I think it is. The British have a very centralized law enforcement system and I think they're is a bit more effective than ours (I lived in England for three years. Cops were cooler there). It also saves money as the US government has become extremely bloated with bureaucracy and redundancies that can be eliminated by centralizing just a bit more. I doubt we could make it all one organization. That hinders our ability to apply checks and balances and such an organization would likely be far too large to manage but I think states on their side could organize themselves a bit more around a central system rather than having three to four levels of enforcement in every town.

 

Are humans not part of nature? We didn't just poof into existance you know. Your argument is a textbook example of a logical fallacy.

I haven't interacted with the police that much, so I can't really comment on the general issue of the thread.

 

It was not done at all. The guy contributed to how many people losing their life's savings and he only serves 2 years? The CEO who was behind it all serves three years longer (and likely in a better prison) than a 16 year old girl who stole $100? That is far from justice. That is a person buying his way out of trouble.

Granted, I am sure he could afford a much better lawyer, with all that money he stole, so of course he deserves a lesser sentence.

Prove that. The working examples of anarchistic communities suggest otherwise (links below).

Exactly. Violence, killing, murder are not the only solutions to life's problems. I bet, had we let him go and not called the cops, the fact that three guys waited for a week with shotguns to ambush him would function as a quite effective deterrent.


Let me also carify that I am not saying do away will all laws (most social laws I believe can go). I am saying do away with (or greatly reduce the power of) the police. Currently we pay out lots of tax money (and additional funds through citations) to pay for a police force that selectively enforces laws (capital crimes are enforced at a much higher rate) and provides lots of grief for the citizen base. Why pay for a service that does not work, if you can do it yourself for free?

If there is still a justice system which citizens can use to bring concerns and disputes forward to, but no bloated police force that feeds off the citizen base, all hell will not need to break out.

Here is a list of suscessful anarchistic communities (throughout history)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
One such community, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania , shows that a community can sucessfully repell hard-drugs, the violent biker gangs, state police, and stand free for over 30 years.

For the record, there has yet to be a single link to support any of the arguments that removing the police will result in chaos and destruction.

 

That's likely the fact of the decentralization I mentioned. The CEO was prosecuted Federally, which has a different system of punishment. The 16 year old I assume was prosecuted by the state. I doubt she got sixteen years just for stealing. I don't think any state carries that extreme. More likely the drugs you mentioned were found and she had additional charges for possession, which imo is too much. 16 years sounds to me like the average most states give out for drug possession of I think it was 3 ounces. I always find it ironic how you get more years for an once of crack than for kidnapping. Heavy handedness to the extreme.

Are you joking? Seriously? I don't have to prove it it's a well known fact! Just in case you aren't aware here are a few of the big ones: The Yugoslav Wars, and War of the Three Kingdoms in ancient China. The Successor States of the Holy Roman Empire, the Fall of Rome. The pull out of the European Colonial powers sparked mass civil wars throughout southeast Asia, Africa, and some South American nations.

In every one of those situation, the governmental body lacked the authority or power to enforce a rule of law, and as a result underlying tensions broke out and escalated to civil war. You cannot argue to me that leaving people to do as they please actually creates a sense of lasting peace. It doesn't. Have you ever been to Laos? People get blown up as entertainment there.

What day? I'm not saying I don't believe it happened I'm just not familiar with it (actually it sounds oddly familiar I just can't remember where I've heard it before). Personally though I don't know if I'd like that option. I think many families would never punish one of their own even if he/she did do whatever had been done. I'd rather have a separate objective body make those decisions, hence a judicial authority.

You continue to use this term, which I find horribly vague. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by social laws? I'm thinking of it as ranging from everything to traffic laws to property laws and the like. Things directly related to the general running an maintanince of society I guess is what I'm thinking of. All the laws minus the felony crimes and stuff you tend to go to prison for.

I'll point out most of the communities the above list contains are a) tribal societies which however complex are still tribal and effectively operated in small groups in which I've already admitted that an anarchist system of law enforcement is easy to work with (and probably preferable since the resource to create an institution to do the job would likely be a waste). The rest, were utopian communities I'm all to familiar with. Most of them collapsed within a decade, a few lasted much longer, but all ultimately collapsed due to internal forces; granted none of it was related really to law enforcement. Most of the groups shattered over decision making an a lack of a central authority to make final decisions for the group. One (I can't remember the name of it) broke apart because of something related to the distribution of food. I don't think it's one the list cause I'd think I'd recognize the name.

the Shinmin example doesn't really sound like an anarchist society to me either. It seems to me to have had some form of coalition government. I'll also point out Workers Communes are in no way Anarchist (this is Wikipedia's failing. Good for starting out but is lacking in the fine details). Workers Communes are decentralized socialist networks that are worker ruled. That's not an anarchy. The groups were just so small they had no need to expand their small government beyond a limited scope. They functioned much more like Feudalist society minus the higher levels of governance typical of feudalism.

Christiania is again a rather large for a typical anarchist community but still a small group. I'm not surprised they can find a way to operate without a central authority. They're own culture being that of the hippie generation probably helps a lot too.

I'm not saying it can't work. I'm saying large scale civilization needs a centralized police force to function. I would guess that 200-1000 people could easily get along (maybe even a few more than that) without establishing an official police force.But once you start getting to communities that are in the ten's of thousands and even millions, it's impossible to run things in an orderly way without increasing the power of central authority and that includes police.

Here you go:

Yugoslav Wars: Basically a conflict that lasted for nearly a half century when Yugoslavia was left without a government powerful enough to enforce itself. Multiple factions broke out and civil war tore the former Republic of Yugoslavia to pieces in the 90's after decades of extreme political tension.

War of the Three Kingdoms: If you've ever played a Dynasty Warriors game you get the basic concept of what this is. A nearly 100 year war following the collapse of the Han Dynasty. Effectively the Han was still the governmental body during the war, but it lacked the political or military power to enforce its rule. As a result multiple warlords sprung up and whole thing became a bloody chaotic mess until the rise of the Jin Dynasty from the Wei Kingdom.

The Decline of the Holy Roman Empire: The Holy Roman Emperor pretty much lost all his authority to rule his nation over the course of several centuries. Two major conflicts of the era, the Seven Years War, the Thirty Years War, were effectively the civil wars that erupted within the empire as a result of it's inability to enforce it's authority. The Seven Years War is the seventh bloodiest war in human history.

I shouldn't have to make a link to the Fall of Rome. I assume we all know enough to get the concept of it. THe Korean and Vietnam Wars were effectively the result of the pull out of Colonial Europe, as are many of the civil wars in Africa. China and Feudal Japan had a repeating system of violence with the rise and fall of power from one ruling body to the next.

I'm starting to think we're talking two different levels of civilization. I'm thinking of nations, whereas you seem to be talking the lower more grass roots local level. If that's the case we've probably been arguing over nothing XD. I think it's possible to operate without institutionalized law enforcement at smaller levels of civilization. Many towns with less than one hundred people don't even have police departments, and a lot with less than a thousand will either have no police or maybe one sheriff and a deputy, and they work fine (The Sheriff usually isn't even a trained law enforcement official. Most of the time they're a local who's been empowered via local vote to have the authority to settle disputes and serve as a go between to larger law enforcement). The need just isn't there with so few people to have full blown police authorities.

I think that dynamic changes drastically when you move to large cities, where there are so many people you do need lots of police authority.

 

If the police (basically thousands of dudes with guns) can't deter him, then neither can you. If you deterred him, so will the police.

Look justice is subjective at best. When you take law away from a centralized government authority and give it to the people, most will pursue their own version of justice.

This means that in a deeply racist community a hate crime will go unpunished because no one cares about the victim and accidental tragedies become family feuds because the offended party can't be rational.

You can talk about monetary compensation all you want but seriously, who would go for: "hey i killed your son, sorry about that. Here take five bucks and by yourself something pretty."

It can work in cases of accidental death, but never in cases of death with intent and no matter how deserving it is cases of that kind almost always escalate into a feud.

Also families will usually give the offender a much lighter punishment then any objective law enforcement agency ever will.

The cops are here to pursue justice for all not individual justice. This makes them incredibly unpopular (naturally) but also necessary for any large scale society to function.

I would just like to say the blood feuds, the proliferation of murder as a legitimate way to settle a difference, religious fanatics loosing any sense of what they can and can't do are all very real.

These are all things that happened, right here in Israel (well… the area Israel was in, but this was before the state of Israel was founded) less then a decade ago. they are not hypotheticals they are facts and they happened just because no police force was around. Things that stopped only because the police was founded and things that will return if the police goes away.

 

Try, I killed your son and you can try to take revenge but I have just as many guns as you and you still have 2 other children. Take this $10,000 and also remember your son raped my daughter.
I don't think the stalker should have been killed, which is why you approach the family with an offer and haggle it out. You might first suggest castration and they counter with an offer of $100 and offer you rights to beat the son if he comes near the daughters residence. You counter with rights to shoot the son and $500, ect. Will it always work? Of course not, but neither does our system. I'm not sure how effective it would be and at the beginning there would be many problems but with time the system could be refined and a set of general standards would be adopted.
Also the law enforcement agency don't give punishments, the judges do. We aren't discussing ending Judges. It's an option but the idea is taking away the police.


[/QUOTE]
These are all things that happened, right here in Israel (well… the area Israel was in, but this was before the state of Israel was founded) less then a decade ago. they are not hypotheticals they are facts and they happened just because no police force was around. Things that stopped only because the police was founded and things that will return if the police goes away.[/QUOTE]

The problem with Israel may be relevant to heavily racist areas but somewhere it's not comparable. There is 2000 years of history in that region that doesn't exist in America.

 

Are you a ******* *****?

None of those have anything to do with police you tool. The first has to do with religion and nationalism, not to mention hundreds of years of underlying problems.

The other two are simply rival bands of people duking it out. The huns sacking rome has nothing to do with police. In fact, in most of those cases, police, the ones with guns, were the ones committing the rapes, murders, and what have you because they didn't have anyone stopping them.

Check out the police in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, South America, and hell, even Europe and North America. The only thing preventing widespread abuse of power in the latter is accountability.

Police don't protect anybody except their own interests. People should have the means to protect themselves from other people, the police, and their government. If they don't, they become sheep for the slaughter. Maybe the police will be a nice little watchdog protecting them from all their problems, but most of the times they'll be the big bad wolf.

If you want to talk about real heroes, take a look at firemen.

 

This is getting heated.