*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

It's one of the reasons I encourage people to investigate the history of policing (specifically in the US, but around the world). The notion that a society needs a standing police force is a relatively recent human invention.

Sure, as populations expand, and with it things like poverty and crime.

The notion that a society needs a standing police force is a relatively recent human invention.

As populations increased, relative poverty and the crime that comes with it become more prevalent. Considering human nature, I think it's an improvement to enforce law and order.

The severity of legal consequence for a crime has little to no bearing on someone's willingness to commit that crime.

I mean this is crazy. I can tell you what stops me turning my house into a weed factory... the threat of going to prison for it. Also the threat of being robbed by horrible bastards who might cut me up. But mostly fear of prison.

Consequences act as a deterrent for the vast majority of people. Nobody is perfect, pretty much everyone is capable of some kind of petty crime. Most people don't want to get caught and face the consequences. Even those that give no fucks still don't want to get caught.

Given that the police are paid with tax money, and that the primary functions we all assume they perform are false, I think it's appropriate to consider that we are not getting what we think we're paying for.

I have no argument against this sentiment. I just fear that abolishing the police would lead to a breakdown in law and order.

I think it's important to question whether the effect we're trying to buy is in fact even viable, given human nature.

Left to our own devices, humans are assholes. We kill, rape, torture, steal, we do war, ethnic cleansing, genocide, holocaust, nuclear weapons, apartheid, even human sacrifice, satanic death cults, the depravity is endless. This is human nature. This is why, despite considering myself an anarchist because I pretty much reject authority in my own life, I fear anarchism and am glad that authority exists. It's a strange ideological place to be.

No police is a step towards anarchism. Are you ready for that? Oskar probably is.

[CoccoBill]

Consequences act as a deterrent for the vast majority of people. Nobody is perfect, pretty much everyone is capable of some kind of petty crime. Most people don't want to get caught and face the consequences. Even those that give no fucks still don't want to get caught.

The last part is correct. Harsher sentencing doesn't reduce crime, criminals gonna criminal. Most of them don't do it for fun, it's what they see as their best or only option. Severe punishments create more violent crimes, because the criminals risk losing more if they get caught. It makes sense to do less but bigger heists, and using violence or the threat of it has a lower threshold, because you're possibly risking life in prison or a poison needle. Harsher sentencing creates more dedicated and dangerous criminals, who are willing to go further to not get caught.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Like I said to oskar, we're not talking about reducing police here, we're talking about abolishing.

No, I'm not. I'm not talking about irrational nonsense that will never happen. I am saying that the assumption that people need police to have law and order is factually not born out by any view of the history of jurisprudence.

I'm talking about the facts I've learned after a year of research into these topics. I'm asking questions about what the problems are - on multiple levels of governance - and encouraging others to stop just answering questions based on gut feelings and to look at the wealth of research into these topics.

I looked into my assumptions (which were in line with yours) and I was surprised to find that not only is there research, there's a wealth of compelling research that indicates I was and you are wrong about things.

Sure, as populations expand, and with it things like poverty and crime.

No, not for those reasons. The notion that a standing police force is a "normal" thing that people need in order to live in a lawful society is only about 150-ish years old. Humans have lived in civilized societies supporting tens of thousands of people for many thousands of years.

As populations increased, relative poverty and the crime that comes with it become more prevalent. Considering human nature, I think it's an improvement to enforce law and order.

You'd think, but no. It's not as if poverty or crime are inventions of the last 200 years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of law and order, but there's a modern view that either you have police and law and order or you have no police and no law and no order, but historically, it just doesn't bear out that way.

I mean this is crazy. I can tell you what stops me turning my house into a weed factory... the threat of going to prison for it. Also the threat of being robbed by horrible bastards who might cut me up. But mostly fear of prison.

Consequences act as a deterrent for the vast majority of people. Nobody is perfect, pretty much everyone is capable of some kind of petty crime. Most people don't want to get caught and face the consequences. Even those that give no fucks still don't want to get caught.

The thing about you saying the punishment deters you from growing weed in your home is that... you didn't specify the length of prison sentence which deters you. The mere presence of a prison sentence is enough. It doesn't matter if it's 1 year or 5 years or whatever, any prison sentence is enough to deter you.

I'd guess that if the standards and punishments in our society were different, then you'd find another excuse to follow the rules. (Kinda like it's not only the threat of prison, but also the threat that you would not have the usual legal support if another criminal robbed you.)

Because you're not a hardened criminal, you will find a reason to not commit crimes. Because you are not an asshole, you will find reasons to not treat people you meet like shit. This is what psychology indicates. Honest people find reasons to be honest. Dishonest people find reasons to be dishonest. Criminals find reasons to criminal and the rest of us find reasons to not criminal.

I have no argument against this sentiment. I just fear that abolishing the police would lead to a breakdown in law and order.

That's your response to this,
"Given that the police are paid with tax money, and that the primary functions we all assume they perform are false, I think it's appropriate to consider that we are not getting what we think we're paying for."
?

Your response to the suggestion that we consider the actual cost-benefit analysis of a government program is that you're afraid that you might conclude to abolish that program - which makes you uncomfortable, so you'd rather not even look at it?

What?

...

What?

Left to our own devices, humans are assholes. We kill, rape, torture, steal, we do war, ethnic cleansing, genocide, holocaust, nuclear weapons, apartheid, even human sacrifice, satanic death cults, the depravity is endless. This is human nature. This is why, despite considering myself an anarchist because I pretty much reject authority in my own life, I fear anarchism and am glad that authority exists. It's a strange ideological place to be.

No police is a step towards anarchism. Are you ready for that? Oskar probably is.

Sure, but left to our own devices, we also form loving families, build community works and projects, create monuments and amazing works of art, build cities and mass infrastructure to allow more of us to do more with our lives.

Humans are complicated. We're a lot of things. We were not simply savages with no love when we lived in a time before police. There were other consequences to not having police. I'm not suggesting there is no benefit. I'm merely suggesting that the benefit that is most widely assumed by the vast majority of people is very conclusively false. The benefit we think we get, we do not get. That is the fact. So, I'm asking, "what benefits do we get for the cost?" I'm not asking it ironicaly or hypothetically. I'm asking it for real.