This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I appreciate the serious and thoughtful essay on the topic. My first impression was a fearful "oh no, is this one of those crappy converted libertarian essays". You might have seen the kind ... where the title and content of the essay amounts to "As a libertarian, I use to think poor people were evil and horrible, now as a liberal I see how wrong that idea is." I'm glad this was not that kind of essay.
I have to admit as a bit of an anarchist libertarian myself it challenges me more than most essays would. I am however of the anarcho-capitalist variety of libertarians, or as some anarchists would describe it "not an anarchist at all". (I started writing this right before I got to the section of the essay where you talk about anarcho-capitalists, so you beat me to the joke, but I'm keeping it in)
I did not have your starting position of ACAB. Though I was very suspicious of cops that would defend the "thin blue line" when corruption came into play. I had multiple personal stories from former cops of the insane corruption and shit that cops got away with. One that stuck with me was an economics professor at a local community college. He taught the class between his extended golfing sessions. Former New York Cop, with a very hefty pension. He explained he was doing the class mostly to have something to fill his time. I liked him, but jeez did he have some stories to tell. Pedophiles left on rooftops to either jump or freeze to death. He told the story in a way that gave plausible deniability that maybe other cops had been doing this, but there was also a degree of bragging and agreement with the practice that suggested he'd done it himself. There was also a story about a bomb investigator that got permanently put on desk duty when his wife and the man she was cheating with were blown up under mysterious circumstances that no one could figure out.
My starting position on cops was something like "probably mostly not bastards, but this is definitely a corrupt state institution, and there are better ways this could be run with the right incentives"
I'd stick by that as the correct position, even today. And it might not sound extreme, but I take it to the extreme. There are certain levels of "defund the police" that I'd agree to. And I'd like to defend that position without vague references to thought exercises. Or to leave you as unsatisfied as David Friedman.
What is the problem with policing today?
In short: Too many laws.
A police officer today probably has more knowledge of the legal system than was ever required of anyone in 19th century America. Maybe 19th century supreme court justices would have been required to have more knowledge.
We have seen in moderation on this forum and in many other circumstances there are two semi-valid approaches to law:
These two things exist on a spectrum. But it is hard to disagree that America has been trending towards the codification of everything. Both systems have their downsides, but the main downside of the "codify everything" approach is that humans aren't so good at applying it. They certainly can't remember everything that has been codified, but even if they do, they can't help but injecting their own opinions into things and turning it into a vibes based system.
Cops are sort of the first entry point into the legal system, so its the first and most obvious place where you see these problems crop up. Even if they get fixed by later parts of the justice system, they are still the most visible. The top of the funnel is always the widest, and cops are at the top of the funnel.
There are many other problems with too many laws. It decreases trust in law enforcement in general. It splits valuable resources. It creates avenues for criminals to exist outside the legal system. Etc.
What is the solution?
First, Reduce the scope of policing.
Second, Split up what they do into different professions.
Third, stop trying to legislate goodness into others.
Fourth, allow private citizens to do the work of police.
To me, these are options are both the realistic approach in the short term, and the only viable long term solution. Policing is a bundled good. Any police precinct has many relevant functions and duties, and police officers are supposed to be generally interchangeable between those duties. (so interchangeable that I know one police district required officers to serve a prison wardens for a year before being allowed to go out on patrol).
This is bad, and dumb. Every industry specializes over time. Police officers directing traffic or making stops to give people speeding tickets do not need a full set of training. Police officers that go and apprehend murder suspects might need full swat training. Clearing out homeless people, securing a mall/shopping center, or patrolling a dangerous neighborhood can all be very different jobs that require different mentalities. Some of the worst "police are terrible" stories come from what I see as mixups between these professions.
Also, just have less laws. Sorry all you sim city players out there hoping to control everyone's actions. You need to back off. The scope of policing needs to be philosophically limited. Murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, etc are all clearly valid reasons for some group to exist that can use deadly force to respond to these crimes. But things between consenting adults need to be off limits to the use of force. People tend to want to legislate how to be a good person. But being a good person is a never ending process, and there are always minor improvements you can make. Once we started embarking on this journey of "police should make people be better" we entered down a path of endless laws and regulations.
As an example of areas where we have reduced the scope of policing, I'd suggest looking at any side job cops ever get. Private security for facilities, private protection for rich individuals, security guards at gated neighborhoods, private investigators, bounty hunters, etc. These are all often more specialized security forces than police, and they can often provide better services than the police. (we should not be surprised that private businesses can provide better services than a semi-monopolistic government entity).
Finally, private citizens are sometimes capable and more motivated to accomplish the goals of a police force. An easy example is a home break in. Police might be there in five to ten minutes at best. If you are already there, you can respond much faster to the situation. Perhaps you should be allowed to shoot to defend yourself. This is true in some states, not in all, and not in many countries outside the US. A harder example: I also can't go to the homeless encampments near my neighborhood and take many actions. I am restricted to calling the police (who luckily did something about it recently). But as a homeowner and father of two. I had much more to lose from a confrontation with the homeless. Even if I could have easily brought superior firepower and safety. A full set of body armor ammo and weapons, and hiring two professional bodyguards for a few hours is ironically cheaper than fending off any murder changes for the crazy homeless person that might have suicided themselves against this extreme use of force. Police have a measure of protection from liability that makes them the only viable path for rich people to deal with problems that might require the use of force.
I might be able to continue this tomorrow, but I'm running out of steam. Police are a modern invention. We have survived most of history without them. I think they are mostly a result of modern legislation. Specifically, too many laws, nanny stating bullcrap, and restrictions on what private citizens are allowed to do.
Well sort of, but not very well. Peel didn't create the Metropolitan Police just because he felt like it, law and order in the early 19th century and before was a disaster, precisely because so much of the burden was placed on private citizens to bring cases etc. and they weren't very good at it. Violent crime in inner London dropped by as much as 40% on the introduction of the Met, with smaller reductions for property crime.
We also survived most of history without modern medicine.
More options
Context Copy link
I will push back slightly on the idea of private guards and the like. One of the benefits of having the police be a government agency is that they are bound by law. Constitutional rights are only in force when dealing with the government. Thus the government cannot impose censorship directly on social media. But since social media is privately owned it’s simply a matter of “convincing those companies to censor for the government,” at which point censorship has happened, but it’s legal even if the government is sending lists of topics to be censored. And if you’re doing “police type work” but are a prive group, i fear the same sort of dynamic at play. The NYPD has to read the Miranda warning, they have to abide Habeus Corpus, and must get search warrants. Joe’s private security force is not constrained in that way. Joe isn’t the government, so if he questioned you without a lawyer, it’s not illegal. If he keeps you in a cage for a month, he’s not in violation of HC which applies to the government. If he breaks into your house durning an arrest, he’s not bound to a search warrant, which, again is a protection from the government not private firms.
Police and government agents also have sovereign immunity, meaning they can't be individually sued for actions they carried out on behalf of the government, as long as they reasonably believed those actions were constitutional. It's a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.
The legal system has also found many ways to work around the "protections" of the constitution.
So the restrictions on cops are not that strong.
Meanwhile you have ignored the main restriction on private security: getting sued. Bounty hunters exist and you can see how they perform arrests on YouTube. Many of the restrictions that exist for police are there because they would be too powerful otherwise. Private security does not currently reach that level of power.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link