Do you really think that getting rid of a police force would change who your neighbours are? Or who you are? Right now, police or none, you could be your neighbour's greatest source of safety, and you know it. But if you don't do anything now, why would you later? It makes no sense to abolish one to try to achieve the other.
No American democracy for Americans?
- Thread starter china
- Start date
Do you really think that getting rid of a police force would change who your neighbours are? Or who you are? Right now, police or none, you could be your neighbour's greatest source of safety, and you know it. But if you don't do anything now, why would you later? It makes no sense to abolish one to try to achieve the other.
Oh, right, and BTW, Cliff, 1984 is long past and we still have no Big Brother computer calculating out our entire lives for us.
See, karrie, here's what's going on.
Most of us recognise that there are problems with the current police/security structure in the U.S. and Canada. So rather than suggesting a patch on the situation with some minor "reform" or other, I tried to get us back to basics. I suggested, fairly modestly I thought, and with plenty of disclaimers that I wasn't presenting a fully-developed plan, that it might could be a notion to examine the whole premise of professional police forces.
Cue the brickbats. First I get argument by anecdote from SLM. Argument by anecdote basically asserts that any notion that won't work in every single situation can't possibly work at all. Which is essentially the argument the gun nuts are presenting against background checks for gun buyers. "Background checks wouldn't have stopped the Newtown massacre, so they're useless!"
Then I get the "What's stopping you from taking care of your community in addition to the police?" I've actually got an answer for that, and maybe I'll discuss it later. But it ain't the same subject as "are the police necessary?"
And ultimately, none of it relates to my original question, which was "Is "privacy" such an unalloyed good that we should knee-jerk cherish it?"
Most of us recognise that there are problems with the current police/security structure in the U.S. and Canada. So rather than suggesting a patch on the situation with some minor "reform" or other, I tried to get us back to basics. I suggested, fairly modestly I thought, and with plenty of disclaimers that I wasn't presenting a fully-developed plan, that it might could be a notion to examine the whole premise of professional police forces.
Cue the brickbats. First I get argument by anecdote from SLM. Argument by anecdote basically asserts that any notion that won't work in every single situation can't possibly work at all. Which is essentially the argument the gun nuts are presenting against background checks for gun buyers. "Background checks wouldn't have stopped the Newtown massacre, so they're useless!"
Then I get the "What's stopping you from taking care of your community in addition to the police?" I've actually got an answer for that, and maybe I'll discuss it later. But it ain't the same subject as "are the police necessary?"
And ultimately, none of it relates to my original question, which was "Is "privacy" such an unalloyed good that we should knee-jerk cherish it?"
Oh, so you can bring it up but we'd better not give our reasons for keeping the police force. lol.
Well, either you're bringing discussions up for discussions, or, well, I don't know what you're doing.
I think a police force has proved its need, time and time again. People want, expect, pay good taxes for, and monitor the effectiveness of, their police forces.
Well, either you're bringing discussions up for discussions, or, well, I don't know what you're doing.
I think a police force has proved its need, time and time again. People want, expect, pay good taxes for, and monitor the effectiveness of, their police forces.
lol... you clipped out the portion of my post that directly commented about the fact that the majority of people avidly support having a police force. And you dismissed my comment that you're better off with three forms of protection than one.
OMG, LOL. Climb down off that high horse there pony boy before you fall and hurt yourself.
You made this comment....
....for which you got a some ribbing for. Because it's not practical.
None of which has anything whatsoever to do with any privacy issues, but you're the one that posted it.
Funny but I've noticed a propensity for demanding answers to your questions yet you seem to skip over all requests to explain what you've said. More than a few others have noticed it too.
Hopefully this reply was not in anyway anecdotal because I would hate to upset you any further.
Orwell was a little ahead of himself. It has been coming slowly and cautiously since he warned about it, but it is not that far off. It started a few decades ago and the ruling elite agenda has been steady and relentless. Complacency is our biggest enemy right now.
Clearly you're missing the "concept" completely. Not too mention the sense of balance.
Now you're just acting childish.
Touche
Not too mention he has not thought it through.
Abolish the police force... then create your own police force. Seriously?
Not practical at all.
It's been tried and people keep trying but it is destined to fail. Humans are too diverse.
Who said anything about everyone being complacent?
I think you watched too many Terminator movies or something. When they put a camera on every other tree around you and me, then I will start to wonder, but till then, I am not worried about getting some privacy when I want it.
Do you have a source for that?
I ask because I wonder. From what I've read, for example, the formation of the NWMP wasn't put to a vote.
If you have a source, I'd like to see it. I don't really know, but I kinda suspect police forces just kinda grow. I can't immediately recall a case where the people have voted for the formation of a police force.
I think that's a cost/benefit thing. We could raise taxes to 90% and make every other person a law enforcement/security type. I don't think many people would agree they're better off with that.
They kind of grow. Why yes they do. And after abolishing the existing police forces... your newly created police force would do what?
Why is it not practical? Near as I can tell, three reasons are given for police.
1. Crime prevention. But there are relatively few cases where the police actually intervene in a crime in progress.
2. Crime deterrent. I'm not sure how well this works. One would think that if police presence were an effective deterrent to crime, crime would be lowest where police presence is heaviest. But in reality it seems as if just about the opposite case prevails.
3. Catching criminals. This is what the police seem to do most effectively. My suggestion was that with no police or few police, we would have to develop a much better system of citizen's arrest.
True enough.
Sorry if I upset you by pointing out that argument by anecdote isn't a very good method.
I never said that. You did. And you're trying to attribute it to me. Which is dishonest.
People vote for a Govt-
North-West Mounted Police - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In areas where natural disasters have taken place. Communities do set up their own informal policing. Some are controlled by gangs, some by the people in the local area.
You're welcome, if you give me a minute, I can post more. There's just over 400,000,000 hits on the Google.
Most of them from your own country, no doubt.
I'll google them myself, thanks. And fair play to you for pointing out that I could have done my own googling. My bad.
You never said that! Geez you just DID say it!
Are you sure you didn't?