It just wouldn't work in the real world. Burning man is a group of like minded individuals.
Many people would just steal all your shit at every opportunity if they knew they could get away with it.
if they knew they could get away with it
Why do you assume that not having police means they would get away with it?
Yeah I guess if we had a force to police what you can and can't do it'll be alright.
We'd also need some sort of court system to make sure justice is done so you can't just accuse people.
But to be serious all of human history and the way criminals currently operate even with a police force.
But to be serious all of human history and the way criminals currently operate even with a police force.
i mean, i hope you understand that "all of human history" is not a very compelling argument in response to "why do you assume people would commit crime if they knew they could get away with it". people don't just commit crimes for no reason. there are, for the vast majority of people, clear factors in why they commit crimes that don't really have to do with Getting One Over on people and that can be socially addressed or disincentivized without any need for cops.
there are, for the vast majority of people, clear factors in why they commit crimes that don’t really have to do with Getting One Over on people and that can be socially addressed or disincentivized without any need for cops.
I agree, but can we deal with those issues? Like take drugs for example, can we fix all addicts? We can make treatment free but some addicts don't want to be fixed, they have too much trauma, they've been through too much, they want to drug themselves to oblivion, and crime, theft specifically, will often be needed in that system. We can make drugs free and legal, but then they'll be dead which is no win.
What about something more severe like domestic violence? If you take a man for example, who likes to control his partner through violence, there's interventions that we can take to help, but they're not perfect, we have better odds if we intervene with children, but that involves time travel.
Literally nothing that you brought up requires cops to solve.
What do you propose?
Well first off, cops aren't EMTs. Cops aren't rehabilitating drug users. Cops aren't preventing domestic abuse (quite the opposite, actually).
So what part of this equation do you think requires thousands of officers with guns in the first place? You brought up 2 issues that cops don't solve, and then said, "and that's why we needs cops!"
Nobody is talking about officers with guns. You seem to have a real america centric mind that's unhelpful when discussing reform.
Now the scenarios I was speaking about you seem to be not reading the whole threads you're replying to. So to recap, Alyaza said there are reasons that people commit crimes and those can be addressed without police, which I agreed with, but pointed out that some people don't actually want their issues to be 'fixed' for various reasons, at which point crime will still exist.
Your reply is that we should treat the issues that lead to crime, which is just repeating Alyazas point not a reply to what I said.
All cops have guns, even if they don't carry them around all the time.
I agreed with, but pointed out that some people don’t actually want their issues to be ‘fixed’ for various reasons, at which point crime will still exist.
And cops do not prevent crime, so it will still exist with them as well. And they're not the only way to deal with crime, so your bringing them up just shows it's the only system you can possible imagine.
And lastly, the narrative of "some people just want to be criminals" is a right-wing narrative that there is no evidence constitutes any real portion of criminals. Nearly all crime is crime of desperation. If a person suffering from a drug addiction doesn't have to steal to get drugs, they won't.
And lastly, the narrative of “some people just want to be criminals” is a right-wing narrative
Read my post. Not what I said whatsoever. The idea that everyone who takes drugs is just waiting to be 'fixed' comes from a place of extreme privilege. It's very frustrating that you're arguing against the points that you think might be happening rather than reading the thread or even my posts to you directly.
And again, I've asked you for your 'alternative' to policing and you don't seem to have anything, outside of hiring different police from the community, but not calling them police, for reasons.
What part of "police are agents of state authority, mutual-defence groups are not" is hard to understand?
just waiting to be ‘fixed’
How did you turn me saying
If a person suffering from a drug addiction doesn’t have to steal to get drugs, they won’t.
into me saying we'd fix them being addicted to drugs?
Again, read the thread. It's like you're replying to individual messages without context. It means that your messages don't make sense in context.
And when those people eventually get caught, they would be dealt with by the populace. Consequences for people's actions is the same deterrent that currently "stops" people from stealing shit all the time (i.e. people still steal shit with the existence of police)
And when those people eventually get caught, they would be dealt with by the populace.
How exactly do you imagine this happening? A tarnished reputation and nobody wanting to associate might work well for petty theft. But I would rather have some sort of court system for more complicated issues. But if you have a court system, you have to have some way of making a person show up, no?
I recently read about a system used by some groups in North America (I think, geography could be off) where people were held accountable by independent arbitration and a cultural expectation of reparations.
It's hard to say how well it worked, the Europeans were idealizing the "exotic natives" and the communities were proud of their community and could have exaggerated it's success. But they did this for a long time.
From what I understand, if I robbed your home, made off with your dog, and in the process hurt your mother, my direct community of family and friends would meet with your direct family and friends and hash out a way to make things better. My family and I might be on the hook to return the things I took, help you with repairing some clothing, and should you or your family need help for a period of time we would be obligated to help. If we couldn't come to an agreement someone else from the community who was not involved would come to help decide.
Obviously this is primarily focused on preventing these things from happening in the first place. I don't want my friends and family to be indebted to others, and through helping your friends and family, we might end up closer, making whatever caused the problem less likely to occur again.
As to how exactly we do such a thing today, thats tough. We have many complicated societal problems that make many feel disconnected from everyone around them. One thing is for sure though, police do not prevent crime, they do not solve crimes, and they sure don't police evenly. We desperately need to try something different, and maybe a first step, in a weird way, is trying to connect with the people around you.
Yeah we could set up some sort of force to police these people.
We'd also need some sort of court to make sure these things were dealt with in a just way and people weren't just accused and punished without evidence.
It just wouldn't work in the real world. Burning man is a group of like minded individuals.
Many people would just steal all your shit at every opportunity if they knew they could get away with it.
Why do you assume that not having police means they would get away with it?
Yeah I guess if we had a force to police what you can and can't do it'll be alright.
We'd also need some sort of court system to make sure justice is done so you can't just accuse people.
But to be serious all of human history and the way criminals currently operate even with a police force.
i mean, i hope you understand that "all of human history" is not a very compelling argument in response to "why do you assume people would commit crime if they knew they could get away with it". people don't just commit crimes for no reason. there are, for the vast majority of people, clear factors in why they commit crimes that don't really have to do with Getting One Over on people and that can be socially addressed or disincentivized without any need for cops.
I agree, but can we deal with those issues? Like take drugs for example, can we fix all addicts? We can make treatment free but some addicts don't want to be fixed, they have too much trauma, they've been through too much, they want to drug themselves to oblivion, and crime, theft specifically, will often be needed in that system. We can make drugs free and legal, but then they'll be dead which is no win.
What about something more severe like domestic violence? If you take a man for example, who likes to control his partner through violence, there's interventions that we can take to help, but they're not perfect, we have better odds if we intervene with children, but that involves time travel.
Literally nothing that you brought up requires cops to solve.
What do you propose?
Well first off, cops aren't EMTs. Cops aren't rehabilitating drug users. Cops aren't preventing domestic abuse (quite the opposite, actually).
So what part of this equation do you think requires thousands of officers with guns in the first place? You brought up 2 issues that cops don't solve, and then said, "and that's why we needs cops!"
Nobody is talking about officers with guns. You seem to have a real america centric mind that's unhelpful when discussing reform.
Now the scenarios I was speaking about you seem to be not reading the whole threads you're replying to. So to recap, Alyaza said there are reasons that people commit crimes and those can be addressed without police, which I agreed with, but pointed out that some people don't actually want their issues to be 'fixed' for various reasons, at which point crime will still exist.
Your reply is that we should treat the issues that lead to crime, which is just repeating Alyazas point not a reply to what I said.
All cops have guns, even if they don't carry them around all the time.
And cops do not prevent crime, so it will still exist with them as well. And they're not the only way to deal with crime, so your bringing them up just shows it's the only system you can possible imagine.
And lastly, the narrative of "some people just want to be criminals" is a right-wing narrative that there is no evidence constitutes any real portion of criminals. Nearly all crime is crime of desperation. If a person suffering from a drug addiction doesn't have to steal to get drugs, they won't.
Read my post. Not what I said whatsoever. The idea that everyone who takes drugs is just waiting to be 'fixed' comes from a place of extreme privilege. It's very frustrating that you're arguing against the points that you think might be happening rather than reading the thread or even my posts to you directly.
And again, I've asked you for your 'alternative' to policing and you don't seem to have anything, outside of hiring different police from the community, but not calling them police, for reasons.
What part of "police are agents of state authority, mutual-defence groups are not" is hard to understand?
How did you turn me saying
into me saying we'd fix them being addicted to drugs?
Again, read the thread. It's like you're replying to individual messages without context. It means that your messages don't make sense in context.
And when those people eventually get caught, they would be dealt with by the populace. Consequences for people's actions is the same deterrent that currently "stops" people from stealing shit all the time (i.e. people still steal shit with the existence of police)
How exactly do you imagine this happening? A tarnished reputation and nobody wanting to associate might work well for petty theft. But I would rather have some sort of court system for more complicated issues. But if you have a court system, you have to have some way of making a person show up, no?
I recently read about a system used by some groups in North America (I think, geography could be off) where people were held accountable by independent arbitration and a cultural expectation of reparations.
It's hard to say how well it worked, the Europeans were idealizing the "exotic natives" and the communities were proud of their community and could have exaggerated it's success. But they did this for a long time.
From what I understand, if I robbed your home, made off with your dog, and in the process hurt your mother, my direct community of family and friends would meet with your direct family and friends and hash out a way to make things better. My family and I might be on the hook to return the things I took, help you with repairing some clothing, and should you or your family need help for a period of time we would be obligated to help. If we couldn't come to an agreement someone else from the community who was not involved would come to help decide.
Obviously this is primarily focused on preventing these things from happening in the first place. I don't want my friends and family to be indebted to others, and through helping your friends and family, we might end up closer, making whatever caused the problem less likely to occur again.
As to how exactly we do such a thing today, thats tough. We have many complicated societal problems that make many feel disconnected from everyone around them. One thing is for sure though, police do not prevent crime, they do not solve crimes, and they sure don't police evenly. We desperately need to try something different, and maybe a first step, in a weird way, is trying to connect with the people around you.
Yeah we could set up some sort of force to police these people.
We'd also need some sort of court to make sure these things were dealt with in a just way and people weren't just accused and punished without evidence.