At 7/20/09 08:29 AM, SonicSheep wrote:
Well they fight crime by fighting those who are going out by commiting crime. If you seem to believe that those commiting crimes should be allowed to carry on with it, then you would find far more murders about, far more rapists arsonists and so on. Even a police presence can help deter crime. The simple risk of being caught is enough to turn people away.
It's pretty shallow thinking to assume people are born to be murderers, rapists, and arsonists.
Our society, and our way of living attribute to crimes such as rape, theft, murder, and arson.
The criminal class throughout the world is comprised of the surplus population, the mentally-ill, and the perverted. Capitalism creates the conditions of poverty, unemployment, and with that poverty and unemployment, comes crime. In this society, everyone has the potential to be a criminal, and even those who wear the badge can be guilty. Since the police are above the law in our society, most of their crimes go unnoticed.
the police in my area, my area being England, the police work quite differently here. Sure we have the rare little bits and bobs wrong with them, but they do there job well enough and police corruption in England at least is pretty damn low.
What about the murder of Ian Tomlinson back in April at the G:20?
I'm thoroughly convinced the police function the same throughtout the world.
From Mexico, to France, from Canada to Italy, from the U.S. to the U.K., it all reeks of corruption.
Yes I have. I've never had an encounter with an American police officer. But I have spoken to and met many British police officers. I wouldn't say i've had an 'encounter' with them though, due to the fact that I don't go around breaking the law.
I'm a generally law-abiding citizen, but I have been arrested before for a non-violent crime. Needless to say, they don't like being called out on aything. And I'm not saying they're all that way, but most I've ever had the displeasure of speaking with, or being cuffed and threatened by.
Well if someones damaging someone elses property, then yes in that instance there function is to protect property.
Well, the police function in the U.K. was originally private, and was established to protect the property of the rich. It eventually developed into an apparatus of the state. While the development has been different throughtout the world, most police forces were originally private security forces for the rich.
If I come up to you and assualt you in front of or near police officer, he would restrain me, and probaly take me down to the police station and you would be asked to give a statement.
Yes, because like I said, they also exist for social control. Their main function however, as it originally was, is the protection of property.
But vandalisim should still be a crime.
Never said it shouldn't be, I just think it can be an effective tactic at some demonstrations.
Again, if I came down to your house and started chucking stones at your house and smashing your windows you wouldnt consider that a crime?
Yes, but I don't think you'd have any real motivation to do it.
Again, I'm gonna say that if a heavy majority wish for it to go, then it would. If only somthing like 2% or even as high 20% wish for the state to be abolished, its not going to happen.
That's where agitation, education, and organization come in.
The police are an enemy of the working class, when the working class decides to go and attack or in other way damage other peoples livliehoods.
They're enemies of the working class when they silence strikes, silence worker and student occupations, and throw the working man in jail for trying to feed himself.
They are class-collaborators, thus our enemies.
But people learn things differently. Two people could have the exact same up bringing and they could be different. They would be similar to be sure, but no identical. If someones born with anger problems, there more likely to attack someone, if someones psychotic, there more likely to kill someone. Even in your utopian society.
No one is born with anger problems, though. Most mental illnesses develop over a period of time, and the root cause is usually outside forces.
So Vigilante justice is somthing your proposing? Because that works so well in South Africa...
I wouldn't consider self-defence vigilante justice, nor do I believe I would need it in an anarchist society.
Whats to stop people going to far? someone steals a flower from your garden, your going to shoot them?
The concept of ownership and property is preposterous, and will be abolished.
You would have people living in fear of each other then. Rather than fearing the police (which you don't have to) people would then rightfuly be afraid of each other for fear of them taking there own brand of justice too far.
The people will have nothing to fear.
In other ends of the world.
Which shows it happens EVERYWHERE.
Defense of police murder.
Think of how many police murders go unreported, unnoticed, or are covered up.
Think of every instance of police brutality on film.
But most people in America are not anarchists. Again, just because thats what you and a few of your friends may want, doesn't mean the vast bulk of americans want it.
Not yet, they aren't.
On the contrary. While there goal is different, the application of it works the same way that you would have your anarchist state.
"Anarchist state"?
This is an example of the Government bowing to the will of the people. Now if the majority of Americans wanted Anarchism, then your government would have to bow to your demands.
But, they wouldn't. The ruling class would never voluntarily step down if the people asked nicely, nor would the rich give up their cash and their mansions. They will have to be torn down from their postions of power, because they won't go quietly.
May be so, but your still far from holding any sort of majority.
Shit, we could be the majority in 10 years.
And besides, any movement could be said to be 'growing' everyday. With a growing population, theres going to be more of everyone. Its not how many people you, its the percentage of people you have.
Well, the percentage is increasing.
Slavery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abolit ionist_riots_(1834)
Racism was still prevalent in the North, the KKK was huge in my area post Civil-War.
I know, but Martin Luther King Jr advocated non violence. When I criticised it earlier, I was referring to the violent acts of disobedience. Simply refusing to move on a bus is all well and good, doing that you know your going to get stopped by the police, but thats the whole point of it, to highlight the injustice of the current laws. Laws which have been changed and repealed.
There were plenty of militants during the Civil Rights movement
Like I said earlier, sometimes you have to break the law to change it. Sometimes violence and destruction is necessary, with the state, it is.
A smashed window at the Royal Bank of Scotland highlights frustration with capitalism.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but are there not homeless shelters in America? Are there not government programs to help combat vagrancy?
There are soup kitchens and the like, but vagrants are jailed.
I don't see how this oppressing people. If I own land, I may not want people to tresspass on MY land. If I break into your house, i'm tresspassing. Should I be able to freely enter your house or land?
Lasted less than a year, why?
Bad leadership.
Ok, I can't find anything outside of the Spanish Civil war.
That's when it was functioning.
Watch this.
Still ruled and goverened by Mexico.
Autonomous from the Mexican government.
I'm not suggesting we abolish society, I'm saying we need a complete transformation of society. After all, you first have to tear down the walls of a house to rebuild the foundation. We need to bring democratic decision making down to the community level, and put workplaces under direct worker's control. To do this, we need to topple power everywhere.
