Bro, I straight up said that the current state of law enforcement is bad, but the answer isn’t to abolish law enforcement.
And all you have to do is look at what Reddit did in response to who they thought was the Boston Marathon bomber to see why community defense is a bad idea.
To preface, I am agreeing with you and countering the person you’re replying to.
There is a difference between abolish the police and abolishing law enforcement. Like it or not, there is ALWAYS something enforcing the laws. It might be the form of mob justice, vigilantes, local militias, gangs, a sheriff, neighborhood watches, the military, or some other state-sanctioned organizations, but there is always law enforcement. That does not argue for maintaining the police, but could still say that a force existing to enforce the laws exists. Heck, I think a police force isn’t necessarily a bad idea, but that the current police force is staffed by people with a propensity for abuse, disdain for the people they are there to protect, and a willingness to escalate situations with violence at pretty much any turn.
You can argue for different forms of law enforcement, but it will always exist in some form. It’s just that citizens need far more oversight and control over it because law enforcement is power that can easily corrupt.
It would be laughably easy to fix the police problem overnight.
Make unions pay for malpractice insurance on the cops. If they fuck up too much, premiums increase and the union drops them. That takes the financial burden of lawsuits for police misconduct off of the taxpayers too.
Bro, I straight up said that the current state of law enforcement is bad, but the answer isn’t to abolish law enforcement.
And all you have to do is look at what Reddit did in response to who they thought was the Boston Marathon bomber to see why community defense is a bad idea.
To preface, I am agreeing with you and countering the person you’re replying to.
There is a difference between abolish the police and abolishing law enforcement. Like it or not, there is ALWAYS something enforcing the laws. It might be the form of mob justice, vigilantes, local militias, gangs, a sheriff, neighborhood watches, the military, or some other state-sanctioned organizations, but there is always law enforcement. That does not argue for maintaining the police, but could still say that a force existing to enforce the laws exists. Heck, I think a police force isn’t necessarily a bad idea, but that the current police force is staffed by people with a propensity for abuse, disdain for the people they are there to protect, and a willingness to escalate situations with violence at pretty much any turn.
You can argue for different forms of law enforcement, but it will always exist in some form. It’s just that citizens need far more oversight and control over it because law enforcement is power that can easily corrupt.
It would be laughably easy to fix the police problem overnight.
Make unions pay for malpractice insurance on the cops. If they fuck up too much, premiums increase and the union drops them. That takes the financial burden of lawsuits for police misconduct off of the taxpayers too.