Id actually argue the majority of people are inherently good but something needs to constrain the minority of the inherently “bad”.
I’m arguing for massive reform so don’t @me about what is when we’re arguing about what should be. I’ve had enough lived experience as a melanated individual. I’ve also seen what mob justice does-while a last resort when justice is otherwise obstructed it should not be the first line when it gets things wrong so often (see lynchings).
Policing’s past as slave catchers and continued existence whereby they protect property over people is not what law enforcement should be. However, no matter what society you make there are individuals who will break laws in both minor and major ways. A lot of criminality is a result of socioeconomics but not all and there needs to be a way to enforce punishment on those exceptions in an equitable way.
sorrry, I deleted that lived experience comment because I meant to @ Ryhnoplaz not you.
so we both agree that lynchings are bad. i fail to see how police still existing helps in any way?
the same mechanisms that deputize white people to kill Black people are what leads to justifications of the police existing. the way to solve that is through abolishing hierarchies not by creating more. Black people should have an unconditional right to self-defense against racists and the police still existing is a way to prevent that. their argument is that taking justice in your own hands is harmful because white people/cops always know better than the victim.
also why do we need law enforcement in the first place? the law is inherently arbitrary and is used to criminalize people stealing food to survive and many such things. i think there needs to be a distinction between crime and harm. some crimes are harmless like distributing food and water while some harmful actions like wage theft are not de facto crimes.
lastly, I’d be curious to find out which criminalities you believe aren’t caused by socioeconomic factors? i don’t see how you could argue for that besides appealing to the human nature fallacy.
I mean crimes of passion would be the simplest example.
Some heirarchy is inherent in society. It can be as simple as a farmer making better cheese than their neighbor. Now they keep more and people who know it is better and like cheese are more willing to give more for it. Now the better cheese maker has more than his neighbor. That inequality is a base for hierarchy. There’s no human nature involved in generating that hierarchy besides better cheese and cheese lovers.
You keep talking about police as they are-that is a strawman I ain’t arguing for. In any society however, there remains a need for enforcement of those societal laws. Unjust laws/enforcement are not an argument against laws or enforcement entirely just that laws and enforcement should be made just.
Id actually argue the majority of people are inherently good but something needs to constrain the minority of the inherently “bad”.
I’m arguing for massive reform so don’t @me about what is when we’re arguing about what should be. I’ve had enough lived experience as a melanated individual. I’ve also seen what mob justice does-while a last resort when justice is otherwise obstructed it should not be the first line when it gets things wrong so often (see lynchings).
Policing’s past as slave catchers and continued existence whereby they protect property over people is not what law enforcement should be. However, no matter what society you make there are individuals who will break laws in both minor and major ways. A lot of criminality is a result of socioeconomics but not all and there needs to be a way to enforce punishment on those exceptions in an equitable way.
sorrry, I deleted that lived experience comment because I meant to @ Ryhnoplaz not you.
so we both agree that lynchings are bad. i fail to see how police still existing helps in any way?
the same mechanisms that deputize white people to kill Black people are what leads to justifications of the police existing. the way to solve that is through abolishing hierarchies not by creating more. Black people should have an unconditional right to self-defense against racists and the police still existing is a way to prevent that. their argument is that taking justice in your own hands is harmful because white people/cops always know better than the victim.
also why do we need law enforcement in the first place? the law is inherently arbitrary and is used to criminalize people stealing food to survive and many such things. i think there needs to be a distinction between crime and harm. some crimes are harmless like distributing food and water while some harmful actions like wage theft are not de facto crimes.
lastly, I’d be curious to find out which criminalities you believe aren’t caused by socioeconomic factors? i don’t see how you could argue for that besides appealing to the human nature fallacy.
I mean crimes of passion would be the simplest example.
Some heirarchy is inherent in society. It can be as simple as a farmer making better cheese than their neighbor. Now they keep more and people who know it is better and like cheese are more willing to give more for it. Now the better cheese maker has more than his neighbor. That inequality is a base for hierarchy. There’s no human nature involved in generating that hierarchy besides better cheese and cheese lovers.
You keep talking about police as they are-that is a strawman I ain’t arguing for. In any society however, there remains a need for enforcement of those societal laws. Unjust laws/enforcement are not an argument against laws or enforcement entirely just that laws and enforcement should be made just.