A little bit of each but be careful, some people will take it as police doing what they want, that's not good.

There’s a balance between physically punitive surveillance state and consequences for your action.

They don't consider that at all. Because they'd have to consider that maybe they are one of the problematic people...

Anyone of an extremist position typically never considers the possibility of themselves being the victim of themselves. Because if you agree with them you are automatically good person...

Which is precisely how cult leaders get away with their horrific abuses of their members. The narrative becomes 'anything I do is justified because I am good and all things I do are good'.

And that's the obvious issue (just remember how many times the reddit geniuses "cracked the case" only to be completely wrong about everything).

Who does the work of tracking them down to arrest them - they are super rich, they have the ability to go to any number of locations and live comfortably indefinitely. You need people to find and question associates, perform wiretaps and search known residences and properties, trace bank accounts, and file extradition paperwork. And in any reasonable society, we don't want mobs to be able to do this on a whim to anyone they feel like, so at the very least we need a legal system to assess and issue warrants for these things.

Then suppose you track them down, and they are living in a mansion in some remote part of Jamaica. Who goes to arrest them? A Jamaican angry mob? Or is an American angry mob going to book a bunch of plane tickets? When they get to the front door, how are they going to handle the concrete walls, iron gates, and private security guards - possibly armed with military-grade firearms?

Suppose the suspect gives chase in an automobile - do you now have the mob jump in their personal cars to chase after them, trying to coordinate via cheap walmart walkie talkies and performing pit maneuvers like they saw on TV?

And then suppose the mob somehow manages to catch them. But maybe we decided we don't want to be quite so barbaric as beating people to death on the streets - if for no other reason than the fact that we are often wrong about the guilt of particular people. So we arrest them and they are awaiting trial. Great. Where? Some random person's house? In the stocks in the town square?

Our current law enforcement system exists because it solves problems that we have faced in the past. That doesn't mean that it is perfect or that no parts of it should be questioned - but if your solution to problems in the law enforcement system is "end all law enforcement", then you are, quite frankly, living in a childish fantasy land. You may as well say that the solution to law enforcement problems is to mount all cops on unicorns and have them shoot everyone with love-and-friendship rays.

I guess I meant the idea of laws, and not every single law ever, but still, sometimes the assholes are put in charge of making the laws, and society either decides to make a law about not making those kind of laws anymore, or they agree to uphold them.

"And gee, well, you know, you've got to have the police. Because if there were no police, look at what you'd be doing to yourselves. You'd be killing each other if there were no police!” But the reality is the police become necessary in human society only at that junction in human society Where it is split between those who have and those who ain't got.

Apparently they stuck together multiple speeches from Omali Yeshitela to get the into to the song so I’m not sure which speech(es?) this is originally from.

I absolutely promise you if law enforcement ceased to exist tomorrow our society would collapse.

There are a SHIT TON of criminals out there and WAY MORE people who are currently law abiding citizens that would become criminals if there were no police around.

This isn't really debatable. Law enforcement is necessary. Always has been. We just have horrible standards for law enforcement in the U.S. and have a culture that promotes bad behavior from them. And those standards can vary wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. You can have a law enforcement agency that's generally solid at their jobs with little to no corruption, and right next door in the next county you can have a shitstain agency that fucks everything up and is awful at their jobs.

The question isn't whether or not we should have law enforcement. It's how do we hold them to higher standards and punish them approprietly for their crimes?

Depends on the values of the society, but there will always be a need for at least some security (because some people are just maniacs).

The police in Australia here don't really spend there time watching people and forcing them to do the right thing.

A lot of their resources are invested in regulating traffic. Issuing fines for speeding, playing with phones, not wearing a seatbelt. If you don't punish people for being dickheads on the road it will be a shit show. If there's an accident they show up in a moment, manage traffic, get the wrecks off the road, et cetera.

Another important function is domestic violence and other related domestic disputes. If someone is getting beaten by their spouse, a neighbor might call the police. They will show up and take the appropriate actions to resolve. Whether that's just informal counseling or charging one or other combatant.

They also deal with mental health and substance abuse issues. I remember 20 years ago I woke up one morning and there was some teenager in my back yard. He was ranting about the robots attacking or something. I called the police and they showed up and took him to the emergency ward at the hospital.

They also manage petty or minor theft. I remember someone stole a (very nice) pair of shoes from my front door. I had some pretty good footage of them, and it's a complicated story but they'd actually left a beer bottle with their prints on it earlier in the day. The police showed up and used the video to get the authorisation to search a couple of houses and found a bunch of stolen stuff.

If you didn't have "police", you'd need some other organisation to do these things.

Really? What kind of take away are you looking for asking anonymous individuals to provide their own opinions based on their own experiences to formulate a blanketed conclusion for how they think every single person will act unanimously in an ungoverned society?

This would only work if the information you are looking for was to see how an individual thinks the hivemind would operate if everyone was like the show Pluribus.

Im sure this thread will get pumped full of anti-cop rhetoric, that im not saying is wrong, but the fact of the matter is, every real world scenario is am exclusive pccurance between the parties involved and every single enviromental variable in play at the time of the occurance.

Its like asking if ypu need bouncer at the bar or if everyone at the bar always gets along. WHO THE FUCK KNOWS?!?! LOL

Something being against the law is a pretty big deal. Its one reason I find juneteenth kind of silly. Passing the amendment that made the previous activity illegal is a very big deal and certainly slavery has not disapeared with the passege of it but now folks can't do it out in the open in that particular way. Its like what ice is doing now. Did police do stuff like this before. Eyup. but it was recognized as illegal and there was recourse that could take effect as quickly as deparmental procedures. Now the "question" of its legality is open. Thats not good.

Have you SEEN people? The answer's not a challenge.

Oh so you tried to implement it. How'd that go?

No ... ?

This is an insane take