Hacker News Reader

Comment by TaylorAlexander | Hacker News Reader

It makes sense that the police exist to enforce existing power structures, yes. The people in power (wealthy individuals and organizations who can buy political capital, and the politicians that represent them) use the police as a threat of and actual tool of violence to subdue anyone that would challenge their power.

> Rather than declaring them part of a fascist plot, why not just try to think about where improvements can be made?

The first step to fixing a system is to understand it. Taking a valid description and twisting it in to an accusation of a "fascist plot" is a great way to ensure you will never understand the system in the way which is required to actually improve it.

View on HN

We're all trying to frame things in a way that will logically lead our preferred solutions.

But the description "police exist to enforce existing power structures" implies that the power structures are illegitimate, which suggests that the police are as well, which in turn suggests we should tear it all down and start over.

But I've never seen anyone who 1) recommends tearing everything down and 2) has a realistic (or even defined) plan to rebuild it.

I've seen plenty of anarchists who do recommend tearing everything down. Antifa has clothed themselves in the name of supposedly being against fascism, but they define fascism as any current system of government. They're anarchists, though the media covers them as "activists."

You're right about number 2, though.

The "defund the police" movement originated with BLM, not Antifa. And the Wikipedia page[0] for it mentions the plan, in general terms

   supports removing funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources. Activists who use the phrase may do so with varying intentions; some seek modest reductions, while others argue for full divestment as a step toward the abolition of contemporary police services. Activists who support the defunding of police departments often argue that investing in community programs could provide a better crime deterrent for communities; funds would go toward addressing social issues, like poverty, homelessness, and mental disorders.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police

Sure bud. As a semi anarchist, here is a very widely accepted definition of fascism.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...

Edit: you're also very wrong about number 2, you just haven't been exposed to people proposing solutions.

Here is a 20 year old very famous book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_Prisons_Obsolete%3F?wprov=...

> But the description "police exist to enforce existing power structures" implies that the power structures are illegitimate, which suggests that the police are as well

I think this is fairly evident, yes.

> which in turn suggests we should tear it all down and start over.

Well it certainly suggests something should be done. Tearing it all down seems like a straw man though. Certain aspects of it should certainly be torn down.

> But I've never seen anyone who 1) recommends tearing everything down and 2) has a realistic (or even defined) plan to rebuild it.

I do think it's very funny when people use their own ignorance as evidence for an argument.

>I do think it's very funny when people use their own ignorance as evidence for an argument.

Your own argument comes from "I think this is fairly evident" (at the top of your post). How is that different from ignorance?

That statement is a follow up to my earlier argument (in the GP comment) which includes substance. But saying "I have never seen evidence so there must not be evidence" is a clear logical fallacy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com