Society Without Police?

[Left Coast]

So we are back to assuming the police to be axiomatically necessary. What a disappointing outcome.

Apparently we're back to my basic questions not being answered. All I asked was how a different system with no police would actually work in practice.

 

[Isolde Schulz]

So we are back to assuming the police to be axiomatically necessary. What a disappointing outcome.

That is the irony: we (not all) employ them as brute babysitters despite the fact that they're axiomatically UNnecessary. The question arises, how to then address on a lucid scale the "temperaments" of uncivil society. I minimise their belligerence, because a step closer to someone's heart surely works more wonders than tooth and nail tactics.

 

[Isolde Schulz]

Apparently we're back to my basic questions not being answered. All I asked was how a different system with no police would actually work in practice.

I hinted earlier that zero system would be the ideal system (Anarchy). But are humans capable of it? Imagine living without passwords and padlocks...

I can't give you an instant manifesto of how the new construct should operate in detail.

 

[Left Coast]

I hinted earlier that zero system would be the ideal system (Anarchy). But are humans capable of it? Imagine living without passwords and padlocks...

I can't give you an instant manifesto of how the new construct should operate in detail.

I'm not asking for every nitty gritty detail. I'm asking for a basic outline of how the system would work and how pragmatic daily concerns now handled by police would be handled in a new system.

FWIW, I don't share your ideal of anarchy/anarchism, though that's probably a larger conversation.

 

[Heyo]

Again, I think "in this exact form" is precisely the weeds that I'm wanting to flesh out. In modern society, there's got to be some dedicated group of individuals responsible for law enforcement, up to and including application of force in apprehension/detention of criminals. If you don't want to call those people "police," that's fine but...a rose by any other name.

Dedicated? I don't think so. Voluntary fire fighting works just fine, why not voluntary police forces? That would work in rural areas even today. You may call that police or not but think about how you'd call someone on a vigilanty "neighbourhood watch".

 

[Augustus]

Dedicated? I don't think so. Voluntary fire fighting works just fine, why not voluntary police forces? That would work in rural areas even today. You may call that police or not but think about how you'd call someone on a vigilanty "neighbourhood watch".

Because fire-fighting is fairly straightforward in terms of skills needed and everyone agrees such fires are a bad thing.

Policing is intensely social and political, requires threat identification, deescalation, due process, knowledge of rights and legal intricacies, etc. It is full of subjective dimensions that are impacted by individual personalities, prejudices, training, moods, fears, etc.

While few people actively try to subvert or aim to repurpose volunteer fire fighting to act against community interests, volunteer policing would be a very different story. There's a lot of money to be made in crime and a lot of power to be had on either side of the equation that can be gained through force or intimidation.

Not to mention the kind of people who are attracted to vigilantism are not always the kind of people you would like to hold such power. No matter how bad this is with the police, at least they have some barriers to entry and weed out some of the worst.

 

[Heyo]

Because fire-fighting is fairly straightforward in terms of skills needed and everyone agrees such fires are a bad thing.

Policing is intensely social and political, requires threat identification, deescalation, due process, knowledge of rights and legal intricacies, etc. It is full of subjective dimensions that are impacted by individual personalities, prejudices, training, moods, fears, etc.

While few people actively try to subvert or aim to repurpose volunteer fire fighting to act against community interests, volunteer policing would be a very different story. There's a lot of money to be made in crime and a lot of power to be had on either side of the equation that can be gained through force or intimidation.

Not to mention the kind of people who are attracted to vigilantism are not always the kind of people you would like to hold such power. No matter how bad this is with the police, at least they have some barriers to entry and weed out some of the worst.

Those are all good reasons for volunteers. You can have specialists you only call when needed. Less training for a single person but probably more intensive.
Corruption is less probable when you don't have a dedicated job but are only called when needed and there are a few others who also do the same job.
"Bad apples" are easier to get rid of. You don't have to fire them, just don't call them again.
And as those "deputies" are many, from the community and have no privileges like "qualified immunity", there isn't going to be the same bunker mentality as with the cops now.

 

[Revoltingest]

Apparently we're back to my basic questions not being answered. All I asked was how a different system with no police would actually work in practice.

It would be great for those of us who are
proactive (ie, well armed & vigilant).
That is until society got fed up, & demanded
cops again. The trick is to get better cops,
& limit their functions.

 

[Kooky]

Apparently we're back to my basic questions not being answered. All I asked was how a different system with no police would actually work in practice.

You also worked very hard to dismiss any such notion at the outset by argueing that any functioning alternative would be identical to modern day police forces. Sorry, but this just doesn't give me the impression of a discussion conducted in good faith.

 

[Left Coast]

Dedicated? I don't think so. Voluntary fire fighting works just fine, why not voluntary police forces? That would work in rural areas even today. You may call that police or not but think about how you'd call someone on a vigilanty "neighbourhood watch".

Volunteer firefighters, as I understand it, are mostly an adjunct support to the professional paid firefighters, or serve small/ rural areas where their services are rarely required. You think people in most cities are going to do 40 hours of police work for free?

 

[Left Coast]

You also worked very hard to dismiss any such notion at the outset by argueing that any functioning alternative would be identical to modern day police forces. Sorry, but this just doesn't give me the impression of a discussion conducted in good faith.

I expressed my opinion. No one who expresses an opinion on a topic can conduct a good faith discussion about it? Yikes. I'll remember that in future exchanges with you.

 

[Kooky]

@Left Coast
I am simply expressing my emotional stance on this discussion so far.

You're not interested in the opinions I have to offer, that's fine. I don't need to be here.

 

[Heyo]

Volunteer firefighters, as I understand it, are mostly an adjunct support to the professional paid firefighters, or serve small/ rural areas where their services are rarely required. You think people in most cities are going to do 40 hours of police work for free?

Except from really big cities and big facilities like airports, firefighters in Germany are volunteers. (But we are going to have more professional firefighters in the future as fewer and fewer people are doing volunteer work.)
Police work, similar to fire fighting, is not steady. A volunteer wouldn't have a 40 hour week. S/he gets called when her/his special skill is needed and ideally there are always multiple people who can be called for an hour or two once a month on average.
(And, also this is off topic, I suggest drafting "volunteers". A year or two after high school or college. You can choose where you do the year (military, police, hospital, ...). And people would love to do it when they get UBI in exchange.)

 

[Koldo]

Societies have managed just fine without a dedicated police force for millennia, too. In fact, civilized human society has managed to do without police organizations for far longer than police organizations have existed.

It seems plain to me that we do not strictly need a police in this exact form in order to enforce laws.

Do you know what is the problem with this rationale?
Humanity has also managed to do without democracy/republic for far longer than democracy/republic has existed in most societies.

 

[Left Coast]

(And, also this is off topic, I suggest drafting "volunteers". A year or two after high school or college. You can choose where you do the year (military, police, hospital, ...). And people would love to do it when they get UBI in exchange.)

So they're not really volunteers and would get paid for their work, lol.

It is interesting to think about a rotating police force. So would everyone have to have to same training as a professional police officer then?

 

[Left Coast]

@Left Coast
I am simply expressing my emotional stance on this discussion so far.

You're not interested in the opinions I have to offer, that's fine. I don't need to be here.

I'm interested in your opinions so far as they relate to the actual topic in the OP, rather than second guesses of my motives or my openness to discussion. If you're not interested I'm contributing to the actual topic, then you're right, no, I'm not interested in your attempts to read minds.

 

[Heyo]

So they're not really volunteers and would get paid for their work, lol.

That would be an option. It is not my main premise.

It is interesting to think about a rotating police force. So would everyone have to have to same training as a professional police officer then?

No. They would all have to have the same basic training but there would be much more specialists than with professionals. People for traffic control, people handling domestic disturbance, specialists for interviewing witnesses.
As I said most police work is random in occurrence. Cops have to do lots of different tasks because if they were specialists, they would bore themselves to death between missions (or would have to travel great distances).

 

[Left Coast]

No. They would all have to have the same basic training but there would be much more specialists than with professionals. People for traffic control, people handling domestic disturbance, specialists for interviewing witnesses.
As I said most police work is random in occurrence. Cops have to do lots of different tasks because if they were specialists, they would bore themselves to death between missions (or would have to travel great distances).

I see, so people would sign up for specific duties and be trained just for those. It's an interesting idea, especially for the more mundane aspects of police work.

 

[Kooky]

Do you know what is the problem with this rationale?
Humanity has also managed to do without democracy/republic for far longer than democracy/republic has existed in most societies.

I don't really see the problem? We are not argueing that democracy is axiomatically the only possible way to organize human society -. we know for a fact that other forms of government are not only possible but have been the norm throughout history. What democracy has been going for is that it is, arguably, the best form of government if people are to participate in the political decisionmaking process - which is not a claim that deals with verifiable fact, but hypotheticals and, arguably, moral stances.

But the argument I was responding to was not that the police, in its modern form, was the best possible way to go about enforcing laws, but that police is a necessary component of governance and has therefore always existed in some form or another - an empirical claim that can be fact checked, and which, in my humble opinion, is not borne out by the historical record at all, at least not if we are being precise with our definitions and aren't operating under the premise that policing is axiomatic to a civilized society.

 

[Heyo]

I see, so people would sign up for specific duties and be trained just for those. It's an interesting idea, especially for the more mundane aspects of police work.

It would both require and strengthen a sense of community. Sadly, I see that dwindling in the moment. We have given away (or they were taken away) many tasks that were once understood as common duties where there is now a "public service". Sometimes for the better (because it is more equal due to stately or federal standards), sometimes for worse.
Ironically it is the criminals who still have sense of community. For a gang member "the 'hood" means something whereas for many others it's the place where ones bed sleeps.