|
Jaxyon posted:Cool, so are you going with the ever popular "if we abolish police then there are no laws" with this or what? No. I thought my point was very clear, I'm going with remove taxation enforcement gather less taxes.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:No. I thought my point was very clear, I'm going with remove taxation enforcement gather less taxes. You continuously lie about the positions being taken and downplay very real consequences proposed to the point of absurdity. gently caress off troll. "maybe we don't need armed murders constantly ready everywhere to kill us" 'ah, but have you considered that without that exact situation no one will ever pay taxes again'. This isn't a real argument. You aren't engaging with the real proposal but your own piss poor understanding and or strawman Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Sep 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:Not if you abolish the enforcement side of taxation. Here are the two arguments you've made. Statistics about gun ownership don't matter, which is why White people are less likely to be shot by cops, despite being more likely to own a gun. Statistics about gun ownership do matter, which is why reducing the number of guns in the country would also reduce the number of police shootings. And here's a fun Sartre quote for no particular reason. “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:You continuously lie about the positions being taken and downplay very real consequences proposed to the point of absurdity. gently caress off troll. It's not my fault you haven't thought through any of the practicalities of any of this stuff. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:It's not my fault you haven't thought through any of the practicalities of any of this stuff. Turn your monitor on
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
Eminai posted:Here are the two arguments you've made. I never made that argument, I said there are more guns in America than there are people. Roughly 1.2 guns per head of population according the stats I looked up. Eminai posted:Statistics about gun ownership do matter, which is why reducing the number of guns in the country would also reduce the number of police shootings. Yes they do, I never said they didn't. I also said reducing guns would reduce shootings, we seem to agree on that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:I never made that argument Morningwoodpecker posted:its not a rational thing they just don't want to die. Eminai posted:And here's a fun Sartre quote for no particular reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
I'm just going to assume you've confused me with someone else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 20:03
|
|
|
They're just not thinking of the possibility that you know that police are super racist but like cops anyway
Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Sep 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:No. I thought my point was very clear, I'm going with remove taxation enforcement gather less taxes. What makes you think we're removing taxation enforcment?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:He's just not thinking of the possibility that you know that police are super racist but like them anyway Assuming that means me, I use they/them please and thank you 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:What makes you think we're removing taxation enforcment? Specifically I think taxation should be done at the business level. Which is also the way it is done in the UK, your employer pays your tax and it is deducted from your paycheck automatically. I don't think you need police to investigate businesses for failure to pay tax. Certainly the presence of police does not seem to be a factor in whether or not extremely wealthy people and businesses can avoid paying tax at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Specifically I think taxation should be done at the business level. Which is also the way it is done in the UK, your employer pays your tax and it is deducted from your paycheck automatically. I don't think you need police to investigate businesses for failure to pay tax. Certainly the presence of police does not seem to be a factor in whether or not extremely wealthy people and businesses can avoid paying tax at the moment. Yeah that's why I'm interpreting that as "if we abolish police there are no laws" because if that poster has any clue about how taxation works it makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Specifically I think taxation should be done at the business level. Which is also the way it is done in the UK, your employer pays your tax and it is deducted from your paycheck automatically. I don't think you need police to investigate businesses for failure to pay tax. Certainly the presence of police does not seem to be a factor in whether or not extremely wealthy people and businesses can avoid paying tax at the moment. That's not how it works. quote:1. HMRC’s criminal investigation powers https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-investigation/criminal-investigation
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 07:46
|
|
|
This entire conversation seems to always proceed on a very individualist level where everyone is focused on how to mediate interpersonal violence or prevent individual lawbreakers from escaping punishment. Something that isn't addressed is that intergroup violence is a much more serious problem for the state. Quite a few armed insurrections throughout history were started over taxation or to resist a change to the social order. Anyone here who is contemplating a transformative change to the economy that ensures nobody is obliged to work if they don't want to and taxation is fair and working people have dignity and political agency is fooling themselves if they think that system wouldn't meet massive and sustained violent resistance at an organized group level, which would necessitate political repression and authoritarian measures that necessitate some equivalent to an armed police force. Obviously the idea of the state using its police apparatus to redistribute wealth and suppress right-wing violence is a completely fantastical idea but so is abolishing the police. It also seems that everyone explaining why the police won't be necessary going forward is assuming a generous social democratic (if not outright socialist) society that replaces police budgets with extremely generous social spending and decommoditization of key sectors of the economy (including possibly the labour market itself). That would require a huge redistribution of wealth and power that would result in violence resistance, and overcoming that resistance would ironically require a significant ramping up of the state's repressive powers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 13:39
|
|
|
'When you abolish the police, who stops their riot?' essentially? Yeah... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 14:28
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:'When you abolish the police, who stops their riot?' essentially? Yeah... I made that point at the start of this thread and it was pretty much just wished away. It’s because this thread is the nexus of a lot of different things. 1. The US police as they exist now are a hosed up institution that wield arbitrary power and frequently brutally murder their own citizens. The US police would be better off abolished. AFAIK almost everyone who has posted here agrees about this. 2. Some posters are here to discuss everything around this: if we abolish the police, how do we do that? What are the immediate risks? What needs to replace it? How in practical terms do we manage the changes so they stick? 3. Some are only interested in discussing one aspect of that (risks, or what replaces it, or how). 4. Some, although not many now, are kramering in to Just Ask Questions and then ignoring everything said in response. Since this mimics groups 2 and 3 it triggers a response from group 5. 5. Some are mostly here to watch out for posters in group 4 or people who aren’t on board with abolishing the US police in the first place so they can shut that poo poo down. Also 6, a lot of posters here (like me, Owlfancier and Celestial Scribe(?)), are non-US people, who fall into one of the above groups but in a different social and political context. So everyone is coming here looking to have a different conversation and it’s kind of amazing we have had an actual discussion despite that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:'When you abolish the police, who stops their riot?' essentially? Yeah... The reason people are advocating for abolition at the moment is because nobody is stopping them from murdering people with impunity. Nobody stops their riot at the moment, in fact they pay them to do it. I do not think you can build an egalitarian society based around police. And I think the idea that the only way to respond to resistance to egalitarian politics is to have our own police, with red badges and kalashnikovs, is an extremely telling and wrongheaded way of thinking. I do not want to reinvent the soviet union. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Sep 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 16:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The reason people are advocating for abolition at the moment is because nobody is stopping them from murdering people with impunity. Nobody stops their riot at the moment, in fact they pay them to do it. Well, how do you prevent the creation of militas? You spoke optimistically about Chaz early on in this thread, and that took about two seconds of not having any cops around for someone else to step into the role of murdering black teenagers under the pretext of keeping the peace.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Crespolini posted:Well, how do you prevent the creation of militas? You spoke optimistically about Chaz early on in this thread, and that took about two seconds of not having any cops around for someone else to step into the role of murdering black teenagers under the pretext of keeping the peace. Nobody is stopping the creation of violent white supremacist militias now. I'm happy to discuss how that might happen if we replaced the police with a law enforcement apparatus that actually did address them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
If people are absolutely determined to commit racially motivated murder then I think that black communities should have the right to shoot back. Which the police presently prevent them from doing, even in the CHAZ because the police protected white supremacist society outside it still exists. When the black panthers even made the faintest hint of being capable of resisting white supremacist violence the US government passed laws to disarm them and murdered their leadership, which I think is telling for how entrenched white supremacism is with the police and the state. They prevent the formation of militias by maintaining the dominance of their militia. And that kind of thinking becomes sort of assumed to be correct. That militancy is inherently wrong when it's not done within the framework of the state endorsed militia and its racial hierarchy. I would like to think that if repressed communities had the right and the ability to defend themselves that it would put people off committing that kind of violence. That people are more inclined to get on with their own drat lives when they don't have the backing of the entire US government to fight a race war against people who can't fight back. But ultimately it is very difficult to see what is happening now as anything other than one big white supremacist militia operating entirely with impunity. I don't know how you transition from that immediately to no militancy ever, I think it would probably take a lot of time, but I also don't see how else you stop it within the framework of the state when the state is the one that consistently initiates and endorses white supremacist violence? And it feels weird writing this as a white dude but I genuinely do not understand how else to think about it. Like, I don't get what the answer to white power is except black power? Power must be equally distributed among everyone in society if they are to have a chance at equality. Political, economic, and if it comes down to it, personal and collective power for self defence. How do you achieve liberation without putting power in the hands of those who need to be liberated? Very little history supports the idea that freedom can come from being handed down by the charity of those above. I don't believe that justice for the working class can come from the kindness and charity of their exploiters so how can I believe that a white supremacist society will just magically stop killing black people as long as it can? It responds to peaceful protest with even greater violence and shows zero sign of doing anything other than escalating the force it uses in response to any challenge to its authority. What militia do you anticipate the formation of that outdoes the one that is killing people and destroying their lives right now? If you're absolutely determined to maintain some sort of state police, I think the very, very least you would have to do is remove their authority to take the lives and livelihoods of other people without consequence. As long as that is something they can do I don't see how you can end their violence. And I think that is pretty much tantamount to what I've been suggesting. If the police have no special powers above anyone else then you still run into all the issues of enforcement that people have brought up and you still need answers to how you make society tick over in the absence of that. The problem with that authority is that it essentially transfers the accountability of police out of the hands of the people they are used against and into the hands of the majority that control the state. A cop kills a poor black person and then the white wealthy majority with the political, economic, and social power goes "yeah that's fine" and then they clap themselves on the back and call it justice. It might be that you could see an advance towards racial equality by peaceful means under the conditions where the police have no exceptional authority, and I would really hope so. But I just do not think the idea that the police will stop racially motivated violence has any real historical authenticity. You don't "stop the formation of militias" we already live in a world where there is one big militia and it's called the police and it decides how everyone else gets to live. I really don't want to live in a world where everyone lives in armed compounds but what is pushing us towards that world if not the way states treat their minority citizens? Where does that animosity come from if not the state's repression of every possible alternative path to justice and safety for those who need it? As much as it doesn't seem like it is possible to, I do have some hope that the same rationale I used earlier about crime having a material motivation, also applies to white supremacism. I think the majority of people even if they are racist pricks, are probably not inclined to act on it by hauling off with a gun and shooting people for fun, especially not if that carried a risk of them getting shot as well. Now currently the police overwhelmingly have the guns and are trained to dehumanize minorities and have complete legal protection when they murder people. It would be hard to create a more horrific militia if you tried. I would really like to believe that if you took those things away, most people would not respond by starting pogroms, and those that did would end up dead very quickly. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Sep 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Nobody is stopping the creation of violent white supremacist militias now. I'm happy to discuss how that might happen if we replaced the police with a law enforcement apparatus that actually did address them. I don't really dissagree with that, but owl said he doesn't want any kind of group of "armed and trained fighters" around. Which is different from your position, If i'm understandign you correctly? E: Wrote this before I saw the new post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Nobody is stopping the creation of violent white supremacist militias now. I'm happy to discuss how that might happen if we replaced the police with a law enforcement apparatus that actually did address them. Beef up the well regulated militia part of the second amendment to the point guns and ammo have to be stored in the militia armory used on the militia range and all the members are registered and certified. Certification should mean firearm safety, legal and psychiatric checks. Turn them into gun clubs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If people are absolutely determined to commit racially motivated murder then I think that black communities should have the right to shoot back. Which the police presently prevent them from doing, even in the CHAZ because the police protected white supremacist society outside it still exists. When the black panthers even made the faintest hint of being capable of resisting white supremacist violence the US government passed laws to disarm them and murdered their leadership, which I think is telling for how entrenched white supremacism is with the police and the state. They prevent the formation of militias by maintaining the dominance of their militia. And that kind of thinking becomes sort of assumed to be correct. That militancy is inherently wrong when it's not done within the framework of the state endorsed militia and its racial hierarchy. No one in Chaz were "absolutely determined to commit racially motivated murder. The "beautiful shot placement" incident (barf) wasn't done by white supremacists, it was the self appointed security force (no training, no accountability, heavily armed...sounds kinda familar...) lighting up a random jeep and leaving a sixteen year old dead. That's sort of the point, that's how the community "firing back" looks like in practice, if you've just got a bunch of people with guns and a third-hand account that there's some enemies around in that direction somewhere. And yeah, the cops obviously aren't much better, buy they're not the only version of a police force either extant or that its possible to imagine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
Way to not engage with virtually anything I posted and just respond with "but what if the police were good" as I had not exhaustively listed the problems with that argument over several pages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:Beef up the well regulated militia part of the second amendment to the point guns and ammo have to be stored in the militia armory used on the militia range and all the members are registered and certified. Certification should mean firearm safety, legal and psychiatric checks. Hi this is the ACAB thread, not the gun control thread, and it's already been conclusively shown that limiting guns* is not the solution to cop violence. So maybe you should go post this somewhere it's relevant. *In the hands of non-cops, anyways. Unilaterally disarming the police might have some effect. Eminai fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Sep 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Way to not engage with virtually anything I posted and just respond with "but what if the police were good" as I had not exhaustively listed the problems with that argument over several pages. I mean to be fair the core of your argument exists on the same level as "what if the cops were good" as it depends on the United States of America becoming a socialist country where there is no longer need or want or a requirement to work. Most of these discussions end up with people talking past each other because some people advocate what ought to be (an abolition of the states force monopoly in a utopian society that's eliminated want) and others are honed in on what they perceive as the current real world outcome of the abolition (some sort of libertarian hell hole brought to you by Facebook Militia). The abolition you describe only works with a whole scale restructuring of the United States which, while a noble goal, isn't going to find much traction with someone considering that abolition in the United States as it exists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
Crespolini posted:No one in Chaz were "absolutely determined to commit racially motivated murder. The "beautiful shot placement" incident (barf) wasn't done by white supremacists, it was the self appointed security force (no training, no accountability, heavily armed...sounds kinda familar...) lighting up a random jeep and leaving a sixteen year old dead. That's sort of the point, that's how the community "firing back" looks like in practice, if you've just got a bunch of people with guns and a third-hand account that there's some enemies around in that direction somewhere. That was the forth chaz/chop shooting. As social experiments go it didn't work out too well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:That was the forth chaz/chop shooting. As social experiments go it didn't work out too well. It wasn't a social experiment at all it was an immediately tainted high profile political soccer ball that had the literal most powerful idiot in the world shouting about it from basically day one. But go on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It wasn't a social experiment at all it was an immediately tainted high profile political soccer ball that had the literal most powerful idiot in the world shouting about it from basically day one. They were moaning about it on TV not running internal chop security.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 08:07
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:They were moaning about it on TV not running internal chop security. poo poo, I gave you more credit than I should have, huh? It was a national issue which means that people were coming from all over to start poo poo, from pretty much Day 1, and that's not really what an experiment is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:poo poo, I gave you more credit than I should have, huh? I don't buy into the qanon deep state conspiracies. The self appointed leaders of the chop said it was a gang thing when it wasn't their own people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:I don't buy into the qanon deep state conspiracies. The self appointed leaders of the chop said it was a gang thing when it wasn't their own people. Oh so you're not going to even try. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Oh so you're not going to even try. Got it. I'm not that sure it really matters. The question of them shooting people themselves or failing to protect it from "outside agitators" or internal squabbles all point to the citizens militia not working as an alternative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
If you're seriously talking about chop as a failed example of a 'citizens' militia' then I think you need to explain how a protest camp covering three urban block-faces and a park that didn't involve the majority of the people living in the buildings there or even a permanent organizing committee, and had constant uncontrolled in-and-out traffic of thousands of different non-residents, could have citizens first before you talk about how their citizens' militia didn't work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
If four shootings is indication of an experiment not going well then the whole american experiment should probably be ended too
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
Practicalities before terminology.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
That's what we been sayin
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 04:39
|
|
|
Thanks mod for the thread name change! https://twitter.com/ScottHech/status/1311334325099651072 So, I know we can just admit there is no reforming this, right? This is a 10 billion dollar outfit targeting it's own citizens, it's fash poo poo on steroids.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheMauriceAsh/status/1312823395520786434 So tired of this poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 14:35
|
|