Hacker News Reader

Comment by EarthIsHome | Hacker News Reader

Societal structures arise to manage contradictions in society on behalf of the ruling class. One example of this is policing in the US: modern day policing arose from slave patrols [0]. This societal structure of slave patrols arose to manage the contradiction in society of slave uprisings or slaves running away on behalf of the slave-owner class.

The government is also a societal structure that arises in society to manage contradictions between classes on behalf of the ruling class. In the US the laws and enforcement benefit the ruling class.

Until a different ruling class takes over, America will continue to subsidize affluence rather than alleviate poverty.

[0]: https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/origins-m...

View on HN

> One example of this is policing in the US: modern day policing arose from slave patrols [0].

This seems poorly supported, even by the cited article - it just says there was a group A doing X, then A doing Y, then later the police did Y too.

And, what about:

- police forces outside the South?

- influence from policing around the world, especially England?

>police forces outside the South?

Slavery existed outside the South.

>influence from policing around the world, especially England?

English policing had very different standards that were derived from Peelian Principles [0], at least until the very recent push for militarization.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

'whataboutism' is unbecoming.

That there might exist other influences behind modern day policing than just slave patrols doesn't free the institution from that stain.

Policing as an institution should be recognized as what it is - one social class being given tremendous resources to support the casual and regular enactment of violence upon other social classes.

I, personally, don't rely on violence, or threats of violence, in my day to day, and don't support anyone else doing the same, even if they think they really really really need violence in their lives.

> I, personally, don't rely on violence, or threats of violence, in my day to day

Sure you do. You might not have to actually make the threats, but the implicit threat protects you and your property.

Ooooh, hard disagree. Just because I live in a place where the police claim jurisdiction doesn't mean I consent to it.

Their threats don't protect me any more than I protect myself with threats against others. Which I don't. I'm big on consent.

Do not say something so nakedly condescending and dismissive of my stated views.

Do you do this to others?

'i don't consent to [...]'

'sure you do. [...]'

For your sake and those you interact with, I hope the answer is 'no'.

Whether you consent to policing or not, police exist, and they protect you from people who don't rely on consent.

You can't absolve yourself of that by simply denying it. You'd need to make it clear that anything you temporarily possess is free for the taking and that people are free to assault or kill you without police response (and somehow convince the police to honor your wishes).

You and I have a different mental model of how policing works. I think you are both believing the propaganda about the existence of policing agencies, and projecting your beliefs about them onto me.

Police don't protect people from people.

People don't not assault and kill others because of police.

There's abundant counterfactuals I could list that demonstrate that people generally don't avoid unethical behavior because of the police.

And, police are often the originators of unethical behavior.

I humbly propose that you grow your mental model of policing in America to a more sophisticated level.

Marketing is not reality.

Every time I hear about slave patrols becoming police departments it smacks of a genetic fallacy: just because some slave patrols became police departments is that really a good explanation for why the Chicago PD or LA PD are bad?

Sounds like you don't like the assertion and are asking the asserter to do more work to convince you.

What books on policing have you read? What credibility do you bring to disregard the assertion?

And yes, the association between deputized slave patrols and Chicago and la police departments is sufficient to explain the harm these institutions cause.

Policing, as an institution, should be eliminated. Stop the paychecks, eliminate the categorical exception they get for doing violence to others.

> And yes, the association between deputized slave patrols and Chicago and la police departments is sufficient to explain the harm these institutions cause.

People may not understand this, but simply restating a premise without further evidence makes the assertion weaker, not stronger. If there was evidence, it would have been presented.

> Policing, as an institution, should be eliminated

What would you do about murderers?

Like I said,

The police as an institution should be eliminated.

Was I unclear?

You were unclear about what happens next and I wanted to give you a chance to explain.

Because I don't think you meant that you would simply eliminate the police and allow murderers to roam free. Or allow private security forces, gangs, and warlords to take over.

So after you eliminate the police, how would you arrange your ideal society?

I would vastly prefer private security forces to provide defense for me than the police. History is full of examples of neighborhoods and ethnic groups organizing their own defenses to manage misbehavior from within and without those groups.

The existence of police dramatically harms the possibility of an ideal society, because they do so much violence with such immunity.

You seem to think that I believe that the status quo is somehow acceptable or tolerable.

This is like saying 'if the US military didn't initiate war against another country, how would it ensure compliance of that population with the wishes of the United States?'

Obviously the answer is to not go to war, and not concern oneself with whether or not another population is sufficiently compliant.

The full and detailed answer to your question is outlined in a book titled 'The problem of political authority: and examination on the right to coerce and the duty to obey'

You would prefer private security groups? I can't argue with your preferences, but Blackwater/Xe/Academi/Constellis roaming the streets enforcing their version of the law sounds much worse to me.

And in your ideal society, to whom could people turn for protection from the private security groups?

You didn’t answer the question which by definition is unclear.

What about the murders that police commit? I'm calling at least some police murderers, which isn't a contestable point.

Your question also assumes the point that police are useful for dealing with murderers, which is not a point I'll cede uncontested.

Policing, because it's founded on the initiation of violence, is immoral.

Mature people can solve problems without resorting to violence. We can solve the problem of others being willing to do violence to us, more easily without a police agency, than with a police agency.

If you or I wanted the freedom to do harm to others, the best route for both of us would be to go join a local police force because they have immunity for the crimes that they commit against citizens.

Police don't have immunity for the crimes they commit against citizens. Prosecutions are rare, but not unheard of.

And the problem isn't how to solve disputes between people who can solve problems without resorting to violence. The problem is how to deal with people who can't, or don't want to.

Someone has to use violence to resist violence. If you can think of a better way to govern that group, great, but just proposing to eliminate them entirely is a child's dream.

Even the book you mentioned acknowledges that. In the chapter Individual Security in a Stateless Society, it says:

> The inhabitants of the anarchic society would most likely wish to develop systematic institutions ... [that] serve the function that police serve in governmental systems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com