Why do socialists demonize the police?

125 posts / 0 new
Last post
yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 16 2011 12:17
Why do socialists demonize the police?

I've never really understood this.

First, wouldn't you call them working class folks? I don't know how it could be said they're being exploited because I'm not sure what they're producing. Maybe you could say they're producing an orderly society.

Second, sure, some of police officer's work is definitely protecting bourgeois property interests, but to say this is all they do, or even most of what they do, seems like a stretch to me. Enforcing speeding laws are in the public interest, for instance, and not a bourgeois conspiracy. So, semantics aside, a constabulary force would be required Come The Revolution, unless you believe people's farts will smell of roses under socialism.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jul 16 2011 12:22

http://libcom.org/library/violence-against-police-commune

http://libcom.org/tags/police

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Jul 16 2011 12:30

there is loads and loads about this on libcom man. The latest article written by Ramona is short and snappy

http://libcom.org/blog/political-policing-or-business-usual-06062011

Ramona also started a forum topic a couple of weeks ago before writing this piece which has some valid points,

http://libcom.org/forums/general/articles-about-policing-political-or-otherwise-02062011

The last post Joseph Kay wrote I think is quite pertinent.

And just a quick point, there is no such thing as 'semantics aside', especially through the medium of textual based communication wink

yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 16 2011 12:39
Arbeiten wrote:
And just a quick point, there is no such thing as 'semantics aside', especially through the medium of textual based communication ;)

I just feel like a lot of times, socialists, especially anarchists, cloak what they're saying. So they'll be like, "No, no, we won't have or need police Come The Revolution. But, yeah, of course we'll have an established group of people to enforce laws."

Or they'll be like, "Down with all government! But come the revolution, of course we'll have an administrative organization of some kind."

Sometimes I feel like they're not even clear what their revolutionary goals are. So they obscure that lack of clarity, and the resulting insecurity over whether they're "proper radicals," in semantic squabbling.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Jul 16 2011 12:46

Well I personally believe the production of ideas does not happen in one person's head alone, it is exactly through so called 'semantic squabbling' that ideas are forced to be developed and change to the challenges that the interlocutor sets out in front of them. So called 'semantics' therefore are of prime importance.

yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 16 2011 12:59
Arbeiten wrote:
Well I personally believe the production of ideas does not happen in one person's head alone, it is exactly through so called 'semantic squabbling' that ideas are forced to be developed and change to the challenges that the interlocutor sets out in front of them. So called 'semantics' therefore are of prime importance.

wall
My point was that SOME socialists, especially anarchists, seem unable to call a spade a spade when that spade is a necessary "authoritarianism."

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Jul 16 2011 13:08

again, I still don't agree, and I think your example of the police is rubbish. The police as an institution right now is a spade (massive DNA databases, deaths in police custody, on the street interpersonal micro-authoritarianism, pre-emptive arrests, the demonization of protesting as a whole, the list could go on but it is all covered in the links offered by Roy Ray and myself). When people critique it as it works at the moment but don't throw the baby out with the bath water, this is not another spade.....

But if this is your minor quibble with SOME socialists lets just forget about it.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jul 16 2011 13:28

Generally, I think most of the arguments on your threads revolve around your tendency to ask questions which a) use wrongheaded assumptions about what anarchists mean when they use terminology (like "authoritarian" or "socialisation" for example), which may explain why people keep engaging you in semantic arguments (ie. you're working off definitions which the rest of us aren't and thus your conclusions about what we think are wrong) and b) which you mix in with questions about something entirely different.

If you actually mean "what alternatives to societal protection through policing do anarchists propose" that's a different question to "what is the anarchist critique of policing within capitalism." Both are going to need lengthy answers, which have generally been covered elsewhere, hence the links. If after having read the existing literature you still have questions, feel free to ask them rather than leading off on a confrontational "your critiques are hiding from the issues" line which seems designed to wind people up rather than help you to learn - particulary given that you cearly don't actually know what anarchists have said on the subject.

yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 16 2011 13:31
Rob Ray wrote:
Generally, I think most of the arguments on your threads revolve around your tendency to ask questions which a) use wrongheaded assumptions about what anarchists mean when they use terminology (like "authoritarian" or "socialisation" for example), which may explain why people keep engaging you in semantic arguments (ie. you're working off definitions which the rest of us aren't and thus your conclusions about what we think are wrong) and b) which you mix in with questions about something entirely different.

If you actually mean "what alternatives to societal protection through policing do anarchists propose" that's a different question to "what is the anarchist critique of policing within capitalism." Both are going to need lengthy answers, which have generally been covered elsewhere, hence the links. If after having read the existing literature you still have questions, feel free to ask them rather than leading off on a confrontational "your critiques are hiding from the issues" line which seems designed to wind people up rather than help you to learn - particulary given that you cearly don't actually know what anarchists have said on the subject.

Dude. I don't want to read your lengthy links. I want to have a discussion and have people put their views in their own words. If you don't want to do that, that's totally fine. Is my creating a thread such an imposition? Get over it. You're acting as if I farted at a dinner party.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Jul 16 2011 13:56
yoda's walking stick wrote:
Second, sure, some of police officer's work is definitely protecting bourgeois property interests, but to say this is all they do, or even most of what they do, seems like a stretch to me. Enforcing speeding laws are in the public interest, for instance, and not a bourgeois conspiracy.

The key here, yoda, is to realise that the fundamental purpose of something is not always the only or most common manifestation of it. Indeed, often 'most of what they do' can appear benign and helpful, but it can be obscuring a deeper problem.

As an example think of Jaycee Dugard, who was taken from the street by Phillip Garrido in 1991.

In the last twenty years, he has housed, clothed and fed Jaycee and her children. 'Most of the time', that is exactly what he has been doing for her. But do we draw the conclusion that those apparent good acts tell us anything of the reason why he took her, or why he continued to hold her?

Of course, we all know now that he is a paedophile, who kidnapped a young girl for sexual purposes, raped her and made her pregnant.

But, on the surface before he was exposed, tried and jailed, he appeared as a normal married man, living with his wife, daughter and grandkids in the suburbs, to those who saw him outside with Jaycee and her children. He wasn't raping her 'most of the time' for twenty years. Most of the time, she was sleeping, eating, raising her kids, etc.

So, what does this illustrate?

The police can appear 'most of the time' to be helpful, as you say, "enforcing speeding laws are in the public interest, for instance, and not a bourgeois conspiracy".

But the real reason the police force exist is to protect the property of the rich. This becomes really obvious during social turmoil, strikes, riots and revolutions. The police don't continue to prevent traffic violations, or detect burglars, capture rapists or arrest murderers. They retreat to their fundamental purpose, to protect the property of the rich. Police officers are taken from all their other duties, and the worse the uprising against the powerful becomes, the more police are diverted to that task alone.

Finally, that is all they are doing; the 'truth' is exposed for all to see. The people all on one side of the barricades, and the protectors of the property of the rich on the other. Even a strike gives a little glimpse of this social truth, where the police break, rather than enforce, democratically-decided picket lines.

yoda's walking stick wrote:
So, semantics aside, a constabulary force would be required Come The Revolution, unless you believe people's farts will smell of roses under socialism.

Well, it's not semantics. After the revolution, a 'police force', meaning 'a body to protect the property of the rich', won't be required.

Any requirement to enforce social rules will be under our collective control, not the control of a few.

'Police' means 'property'.

Hope this helps, mate.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jul 16 2011 14:10

Ah I see, so you don't want to actually know the answers to your questions, right then. Forgive me if I can't be bothered to read your lengthy posts any more, instead I'll just write about what I think's wrong with you from a position of compete ignorance roll eyes.

yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 16 2011 14:15
LBird wrote:
Hope this helps, mate.

It does. It makes more sense to me if you call police irredeemably reactionary if you're using the narrow definition of those whose fundamental purpose is to protect property. Similarly, it makes more sense to me to call the state irredeemably reactionary if you're using the narrow definition of an instrument of class domination, as opposed to a administrative organization that could be bent to the interest of the masses. But who gets to set these "standard" socialist definitions. How does Marx define the state, for instance? So much of the problem with anarchists for me is that they're so anti-ideological that they don't seem to use a standard vocabulary, Each thinker employs words and concepts differently, and so force the reader to reinvent the wheel over and over. That's a lot of the appeal of Marxism for me.

P.S. I realize I'm going off on a tangent.

yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 16 2011 14:20
yoda's walking stick wrote:
How does Marx define the state, for instance?

Like, for instance, when he says the state will "wither away," what exactly does he mean?

Is he defining the state narrowly as an instrument of class domination? If so, does that simply mean that everyone will melt into a single, classless society, but government will remain?

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Jul 16 2011 14:38
yoda's walking stick wrote:
Why do socialists demonize the police?

.

LBird wrote:
Hope this helps, mate.

.

yoda's walking stick wrote:
It does.

.
Well, mate, we've answered your initial question.

yoda's walking stick wrote:
P.S. I realize I'm going off on a tangent.

Yeah, you're probably better off trying to stick to one issue, making sure you're happy with the answers that you've received, and then starting a new thread for further questions.

If you keep quickly jumping from one question to another, almost without acknowledging that you've put some time and effort into understanding what other posters have put time and effort into writing, then it can appear that you are a dilettante who easily discards others' efforts.

Not a strategy for winning friends...

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jul 16 2011 17:28

Simply put, the role of the police is protection of property and social control. Yes, they do engage in some socially productive tasks, but when push comes to shove and capital and/or the state is threatened, they are the armed enforcers of class society. Fuck 'em.

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Jul 16 2011 18:15

I don't know where you're from but in the general area I'm in, the activities of the police include beating and murdering people on a regular basis.

The thing is that in the poorest neighborhoods, beating and murdering people is an important strategy for the police (though they don't restrict themselves to only these areas). Moreover, violence has always part of the approach for a human wishing to assert dominance. Having little to lose, having the threat of jail already over their heads and living in a society little different from jail, the impoverished can indeed be quick to resort to violence if they're facing an authority who isn't inclined to use overwhelming violence on a regular basis. Capitalist relations can turn the most impoverished zones into "jungles" where police and gangsters terrorize the population at large to assert their dominance.

Yoda-stick wrote:
Or they'll be like, "Down with all government! But come the revolution, of course we'll have an administrative organization of some kind."

Sure, among those labeling themselves either anarchist or communist, there are those imagine a world almost like the present except for there being a massive democratic apparatus to make sure everything is "just" or "fair" or "rational" or some combination of these. We'll commute to work in an egalitarian manner, we'll produce plastic flowers in our green factories in an egalitarian manner, we go home our impersonal but equally divided suburban subdivisions and pay our fairly alloted labor tokens to see concerts by the latest pop-stars fairly chosen on "Anarchist Idol" and we'll go to many, many meetings to keep it all fair (Bob Black's "Anarchy After Leftism" is useful as a fine statement of this divide despite Black's many other problems...).

It's natural that folks think this way imagine "something like" a police force to enforce the fair laws of this egalitarian machine (and perhaps to drag people to the meetings?). But I don't really view those using this approach as being comrade in a common project - such people tend to like the, uh, police far too much and not-strangely, far more than the average non-political person (even the average "middle person" here in da' USA has an antipathy towards the police having seen their corruption, their bullying, their stupidity etc).

Now opportunists such as Maoists, attack the police while having plans for even harsher policing once they attain power. In the world of those imagine a non-different society, how much one is going to attack the police depends on how opportunist you want to get - "in our society, the police will be honest, courteous and fair".

vaneigem wrote:
People who talk about revolution and class struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of constraints, such people have a corpse in their mouth
Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Jul 16 2011 19:46

Totally agree with RedHughs here.
Instead of the abstraction about cops "after the revolution", let's look at a concrete example (please note the bolded sections):

Quote:
In the heart of Tunisia. Thala: the occupied police station
Thala, Kasserine governorate (province), 300 kms from the capital. A poor city, on the fringe, whose only resourse is agriculture which depends on rainfall: wheat, prickly pears... without industry.
Upon our arrival, we were surprised to find an outdoor museum filled with graffiti. Graffiti demanding freedom and dignity, against Ben Ali and his henchmen, tributes to the 6 who died in the revolution, a sign of the inhabitants' desire to be true to their memory. The free expression of the people on the walls of this small, abandoned city of the Tunisian interior.
Young people throng around us to see us taking pictures of the graffiti. They tell us the story of their struggle. As early as 24th December they held their first solidarity march with Sidi Bouzid, where the first call in all of Tunisia was made demanding the fall of Ben Ali. On 3 January, students from the town's two schools - one at each end of the city - decided to protest. The principals of the schools called parents in an attempt to stop the students taking to the streets. But they only achieved the opposite: the parents joined their children and all the people took to the streets in a peaceful demonstration.
The hated Colonel Youssef Abdelaziz ordered to fire on the demonstrators. Marouan Jemli, 19, was the first martyr in Thala. The struggle not to lose his body, fearing that the police would try to hide their crime, caused a second death - another 19-year-old. Finally, the young people were able to carry Marouan's body to his grandmother's house after a 10-hour walk over mountain trails.
Marouan's funeral was used by the criminal colonel Youssef as an opportunity to shoot at the people carrying the coffin. A 32-year-old comrade who was preparing for his wedding in March and a disabled man were both hit by police bullets and died beside the coffin, the latter with five bullets in his body! The mothers had originally tried to carry the coffin themselves (in Muslim culture, it is the men who accompany the dead to the cemetery), but the young men instead had decided to carry it.
Between 3rd and 6th January, Thala - a town of 15,000 inhabitants - was completely surrounded by 1,800 police. It was impossible to leave or to enter. Supplies of water, bread and sugar were cut off. Cries were heard in every corner of Thala, "YES to bread and water, NO to Ben Ali". 150 people were imprisoned and a great many young men, women and children were tortured and abused. But through Facebook and other social networks, the young were able to publish videos of the repression and publicize the police murder of 5 young people and their siege of the town.
On 8th January, Col. Youssef was overthrown and replaced by another police chief. But the movement had spread throughout Tunisia and the rebellion had reached the capital. On 12th January, yet another person was killed by the police outside his home. New police chief, new murder.
The orders to the police in the early days were clear: crush the rebellion in the Sidi Bouzid and Kasserine (home to Thala) governorates in order to prevent it from spreading to the rest of Tunisia. The 1,800 police officers who surrounded the town for days had clear orders to kill, to crush resistance, like elsewhere.
Thala, a town without police, without a municipality, managed by the people.
But Thala, a town with a revolutionary tradition, resisted and won. Today, there are no police in town. Young people take it in turns to deal with security.
Only the military presence reminds us that there is a state.
The committee to safeguard the revolution runs the town and has "justice for our dead" as its prime demand....
The police station transformed into a social centre
After the death of Marouan, his friends were consumed with anger. One of them, filling his motorbike with petrol, set it on fire and crashed it into the police station, causing a fire that forced the police to leave the town.
On 17th February, Nemri Bassem, a mechanical engineer unemployed since 2004, occupied the police station and stayed there, demanding his right to work. This action is only one of hundreds of actions that have been carried out in Tunisia by the Union of Unemployed Graduates.
Nemri is not alone. Many young people joined him for his hours at the police station, which has today been converted into a place where you can listen to music, play cards and talk about revolution.

We said goodbye to Thala. Marouan's father points out to us the place where they killed his son: "I will never forget this place". And so says the graffiti that he did there.
Neither will the Tunisian people forget.

http://libcom.org/news/protests-spread-tunisia-12012011?page=16

You don't need specialists in Order: you need to rotate the tasks necessary for the development of proletarian community, "to take it in turns with security".

As for yoda's praise of the cops enforcing speed limits: do you know how many people are killed each year by speeding cop cars?

ajjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 20-04-08
Jul 17 2011 04:58

All coppers are workers. The SPGB take on the original question why socialists demonize the police

http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2008/01/all-coppers-are-workers.html

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Jul 17 2011 06:28

(We had a long moronic debate on whether teachers are workers a while back too...)

Who cares whether cops are workers or not. Is it that hard to believe someone can be a worker and a sack of shit? I'm inclined to believe the cops are more or less part of the working class, just a part that's going to be our enemy during the entire time it exists.

The cops don't work that hard or face that much danger. But when they are working, their work consists primarily in imposing capitalist property relations with varying degrees of violence, up to and including shooting people trying to avoid paying transit fares.

That might not mean they are "inevitably" counter-revolutionary. But violently (and usually corruptly) defending capitalism is kind of the worst place to start as far as oppose capitalism goes...

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Jul 17 2011 06:55
RedHughs wrote:
...their work consists primarily in imposing capitalist property relations with varying degrees of violence, up to and including shooting people trying to avoid paying transit fares.

Well, this isn't strictly true, is it? According to the article (which might be lying in favour of the police or simply mistaken), the two men were shot for violently attacking the police, not for trying to avoid their rail fares.

The Examiner wrote:
The suspect, who was shot by two officers after allegedly turning and firing at the cops...

...BART police officers shot and killed Charles Hill, who allegedly was drunk and wielding a broken bottle and one or two knives...

While I can imagine police officers, in some societies and at some times of stress, actually shooting people for fare dodging, in answering yoda's question and explaining why we are opposed to the police, it doesn't pay to lay on the rhetoric too thickly, because it undermines, not strengthens, our case, when the questioner actually reads the 'evidence' provided.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Jul 17 2011 08:45

The police are the first physical line of defence for capitalism, whenever you do anything that stretches the thin veneer of ideology that covers capitalism and act collectively in any way shape or form they are the physical force first arrayed against you. Any demo or picket you go, ten to one they'll be there. They enforce your poverty collectvely and individually, when your skint and buying bake beans at the end of the month, its them that makes you do it.
When the scabs need to get through a militant pciket line, its the cops that let them through.
Its fairly understandable then that most anarchists and socialists and indeed many other workers are going to spend a disproportionae amount of time disliking the police, because they come into contact with them more than say the army, unless they happen to live in a warzone or a country where the police and army are merged to some degree (eg brazil).

I would agree that many anarchists present a decidedly vague idea of the society they want to see. As such instead of talking about how a smaller amount violent, mentally unstable and/or anti-social behaviour will be dealt with (eg using courts, laws, detention centres and shock horror police) too many opt for the fuzzy ''there will be no crime after the revolution'' line, which as you say is a cop out. As you pointed out even in a society where everyone feels they have a stake in things, you still need traffic police, because inevitably some people will sometimes speed, drive badly or drunkenly. That said there would be a lot less cars on the roads in an anarchist society as people wouldn't commute (no profit motive to do so) or drive their kids miles to school (local catchment area) and public transport would obviously be much more efficient and more prevalent in a collectivst society. As such the number of traffic cops would be massively smaller.

Personally i'd see the logical solution being a very small number of professionals to deal with inestigations and forensics, and a larger force made up of volunteers who stayed in the job for a year or two then moved on so as to prvent the rise of barracks mentality which is one fo the worst aspects of contemporary policing. That said in total 'police'' numbers in a communist society would be pretty minute, the majority of prisoners in a capitalist society are there for petty theft, gang related crime, prostituion or low level drugs offences. None of which would exist in a communist society because there would be no economic rationale behind any of them. One would hope that other crimes to do with power and anti-social violence would decrease also.

yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 17 2011 12:31

Thanks everyone for their thoughtful responses. It's been brought to my attention that when people take the time to post such responses and I don't acknowledge them, I appear ungrateful. That's not the case. I read them all and take them into consideration!

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Jul 17 2011 16:05
cantdo... wrote:
As you pointed out even in a society where everyone feels they have a stake in things, you still need traffic police, because inevitably some people will sometimes speed, drive badly or drunkenly.

Well, that does assume that the private automobile continue its dominant role also...

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Jul 17 2011 16:18
LBird wrote:
RedHughs wrote:
...their work consists primarily in imposing capitalist property relations with varying degrees of violence, up to and including shooting people trying to avoid paying transit fares.

Well, this isn't strictly true, is it? According to the article (which might be lying in favour of the police or simply mistaken), the two men were shot for violently attacking the police, not for trying to avoid their rail fares.

The man was pursued for skipping fairs (and pursuit implies violence may come next). He supposedly shot for shooting back at police. However, transit police in the San Francisco Bay Area have a fairly long history at this point of fabricating stories of the people they murder having weapons. In this instance, I believe the weapon was supposed to have been stolen by a bystander and so will not ever be produced at trial, if there ever is a trial.

I supposed giving the back-story on all this would have been useful.

At the same time, I'll assume we're all adults having spent some time in capitalist society rather than Robinson Crusoes having just walked out of the state of nature. Either you have seen and researched the behavior and know that significant percentage of their actions are not as they seem or you're kind of being willful ignorant. "He was running after stealing/looting/etc but he had a gun so we had to kill him (but the gun was made of dry ice and just evaporated)" means... "we shot him for stealing/looting..." in general, in modern society.

Ellar's picture
Ellar
Offline
Joined: 1-11-09
Jul 17 2011 16:59

By definition a police force would not exist in a anarchist society since the police force enforce law and laws would also by definition not exist in a society without a state to make, interpret or enforce them. This should not be confused with the believe that there would be no rules or unnacceptable behaviour in a anarchist society.

A group of people with forensic skills who attempt to find out who did something does not a police force make. The responsability of policing a community would be shared by all those within that community, in a functional anarchist society members of your community would not accept you driving dangerously through the place were they and their children live.

If somebody is running around murdering people and their are no factors in society that have lead to that person being dangerous then that person needs medical help. Not somebody to beat them up and lock them in a cell for life.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Jul 17 2011 17:14
RedHughs wrote:
...you're kind of being willful[ly] ignorant...

"shooting people trying to avoid paying transit fares"

I'm not being ignorant: they weren't shot for 'fare avoidance', which your statement implies.

They were shot for, allegedly, threatening the police officers' lives.

You and I both know that police officers, all over the world, shoot innocent people. So, for the purposes of your illustration, which I agree with you trying to do, why not select a case in which that is exactly what police officers have done?

Otherwise, people who aren't convinced at the moment that police officers do do this, but have their suspicions and read our site, won't follow a link that doesn't clearly show police officers actually doing what we both know that they do, ie. shoot innocent people, but find something that they can imagine themselves doing, ie. defending themselves against violence. This only gives the police more sympathy - 'they've got a tough job to do'.

RedHughs wrote:
At the same time, I'll assume we're all adults...

Yeah, we both are, and I think we should assume that people reading this site are too, and have the power to read what's actually written in 'evidence', and can draw their own conclusions.

I'd just prefer that they draw conclusions for which we both know plenty of evidence exists, and don't think that a dodgy inference is the best we can do.

yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 17 2011 17:16
Ellar wrote:
By definition a police force would not exist in a anarchist society since the police force enforce law and laws would also by definition not exist in a society without a state to make, interpret or enforce them. This should not be confused with the believe that there would be no rules or unnacceptable behaviour in a anarchist society.

A group of people with forensic skills who attempt to find out who did something does not a police force make. The responsability of policing a community would be shared by all those within that community, in a functional anarchist society members of your community would not accept you driving dangerously through the place were they and their children live.

If somebody is running around murdering people and their are no factors in society that have lead to that person being dangerous then that person needs medical help. Not somebody to beat them up and lock them in a cell for life.

This is all utopianism, in my opinion. No offense is intended.

Ellar's picture
Ellar
Offline
Joined: 1-11-09
Jul 17 2011 17:32
Quote:
This is all utopianism, in my opinion. No offense is intended.
.

Care to expand on that?

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Jul 17 2011 17:59
Quote:
They were shot for, allegedly, threatening the police officers' lives.

Also, it's worth noting that they didn't just threaten an officers life out of the blue. Whether or not they really shot at the officers in the end, the situation escalated from them evading transit fares.

yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 17 2011 19:09
Ellar wrote:
Quote:
This is all utopianism, in my opinion. No offense is intended.
.

Care to expand on that?

It's just ludicrous all around. I mean go right a utopian sci-fi novel about it; I'm sure it would be great. But it's not going to work in the real world.

Laws — and I'm not talking about bourgeois property laws here, obviously — are necessary. I don't want to play some sophomoric semantic game of "Well we'd have rules of unacceptable behavior, just not laws." So, if you're saying society needs defined and consistently applied "rules" (also called "laws" by those who aren't anarchist dilettantes), I agree.

But if you're saying that people should "sense" what's acceptable behavior and what's not, without it being delineated, that's just silly. It might work in a small population, though even then it sounds easy to take advantage of vagueness to apply unstated rules unevenly, but it wouldn't work in a large population, a city of millions of people. I'm not going to argue about it, because it's not worth it. If this is your position, it's naivete, however well intentioned.

Get out of the dorm room! Put down the hookah! Thank you.

Ellar's picture
Ellar
Offline
Joined: 1-11-09
Jul 17 2011 22:07
Quote:
I'm not going to argue about it, because it's not worth it

lol well, that killed that discussion.

Since when did I say rules would be 'sensed' spontaneously rather than being decided by the community.