Police have unions for negotiating better conditions but they don’t displace power to the polices: police does not have right of strike. At best, what police officers can do is a strike of zeal, where they overlook most situations except for the most grievous.
This implies a speeding ticket will not get written but a bank robbery will be dealt with.
Again, the US is no example for anything, and even less for this.
Police is not a for-profit organization; it’s a pillar of the democratic state and as such is moved by a mission not an production objective, which some ingenious politians and high ranking officers have tried to do, with horrible results, like police agents openly denouncing it to the public.
The checks and balances you fear will be knocked down are so scattered, it would take the complete dismantling of our entire country to remove it. Just recently, it was eliminated a specialized police tasked with immigration and border control and the back lash has been immense: people want specialized agents for specialized functions, regardless the previously dismantled force being disbanded for serious and proven cases of abuse of power and corruption, which led to arrests.
To prevent one force to feel unchecked we have three different polices, a plethora of specialized agencies and a central investigation department directly under the orders of the republic prosecutor. Too many people checking on too many people. This model works so well, even politians have been connected to serious corruption schemes lately.
We solved our war on drugs by removing the crime frame from consumption and carry for personal use, thus releasing police resources to contend with real traficking, not petty matters.
people want specialized agents for specialized functions
All of us have grown up in authoritarian systems, trained to look to the state for answers and safety. It’s not surprising that people trained to look to police for safety and penalized for protecting themselves “want” police of some sort.
Take notes. Might be useful to someone.
I never said might isn’t useful, it’s incredibly useful to those looking to coerce others. I’m saying it’s the desire to coerce others that is the problem, and law enforcement is the muscle behind the coercion. What reasons are there to coerce another that are not fucked up?
There is an ugly backdrop of “bad”, “coercion”, “oppression” and “authoritarian” to this conversation.
And while I try to concede, to my hability, your good points and ilustrate steps have been taken to remove or diminish points of concern, in an effort to advance for something better, there seems to be an ever deeper entrenching on your part to build up the same points.
The state, which authority emanates from the people, does have the monopoly of force, which is a tool to ensure peace and stability inside a society looking to get rid of the need of it.
Your stance, to my understanding, veers towards an ideal anarchism, a philosophy I support myself.
But like any other social system, anarchy is affected by bad actors, motivated by selfish motives like indifference for their similar, greed or the simple appeal of basic violence against their fellow.
How are we supposed to deal with these? Are we all to become vigilantes? Allow angry mobs to apply “justice”? Or should we create special groups, prepared to deal daily with this kind of situation, to make our best collective effort to ensure “force” does not become “violence”?
You are the state. You, your neighbour, your community, your district, etc. You live in a crooked system you have allowed to flourish. Do you expect change to happen by spontaneous generation? Your default stance is of distrust. The “man” is out to get you. Guess what? You are the “man”. You trapped yourself by your own actions.
Your reality is not universal. That is what I’ve been trying to pass across. Regardless a perfect system not existing, better than what you experience is possible and exists.
Police have unions for negotiating better conditions but they don’t displace power to the polices: police does not have right of strike. At best, what police officers can do is a strike of zeal, where they overlook most situations except for the most grievous.
This implies a speeding ticket will not get written but a bank robbery will be dealt with.
Again, the US is no example for anything, and even less for this.
Police is not a for-profit organization; it’s a pillar of the democratic state and as such is moved by a mission not an production objective, which some ingenious politians and high ranking officers have tried to do, with horrible results, like police agents openly denouncing it to the public.
The checks and balances you fear will be knocked down are so scattered, it would take the complete dismantling of our entire country to remove it. Just recently, it was eliminated a specialized police tasked with immigration and border control and the back lash has been immense: people want specialized agents for specialized functions, regardless the previously dismantled force being disbanded for serious and proven cases of abuse of power and corruption, which led to arrests.
To prevent one force to feel unchecked we have three different polices, a plethora of specialized agencies and a central investigation department directly under the orders of the republic prosecutor. Too many people checking on too many people. This model works so well, even politians have been connected to serious corruption schemes lately.
We solved our war on drugs by removing the crime frame from consumption and carry for personal use, thus releasing police resources to contend with real traficking, not petty matters.
Take notes. Might be useful to someone.
All of us have grown up in authoritarian systems, trained to look to the state for answers and safety. It’s not surprising that people trained to look to police for safety and penalized for protecting themselves “want” police of some sort.
I never said might isn’t useful, it’s incredibly useful to those looking to coerce others. I’m saying it’s the desire to coerce others that is the problem, and law enforcement is the muscle behind the coercion. What reasons are there to coerce another that are not fucked up?
There is an ugly backdrop of “bad”, “coercion”, “oppression” and “authoritarian” to this conversation.
And while I try to concede, to my hability, your good points and ilustrate steps have been taken to remove or diminish points of concern, in an effort to advance for something better, there seems to be an ever deeper entrenching on your part to build up the same points.
The state, which authority emanates from the people, does have the monopoly of force, which is a tool to ensure peace and stability inside a society looking to get rid of the need of it.
Your stance, to my understanding, veers towards an ideal anarchism, a philosophy I support myself.
But like any other social system, anarchy is affected by bad actors, motivated by selfish motives like indifference for their similar, greed or the simple appeal of basic violence against their fellow.
How are we supposed to deal with these? Are we all to become vigilantes? Allow angry mobs to apply “justice”? Or should we create special groups, prepared to deal daily with this kind of situation, to make our best collective effort to ensure “force” does not become “violence”?
You are the state. You, your neighbour, your community, your district, etc. You live in a crooked system you have allowed to flourish. Do you expect change to happen by spontaneous generation? Your default stance is of distrust. The “man” is out to get you. Guess what? You are the “man”. You trapped yourself by your own actions.
Your reality is not universal. That is what I’ve been trying to pass across. Regardless a perfect system not existing, better than what you experience is possible and exists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lHPSBOvfnU
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=3lHPSBOvfnU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.