• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is having police a form of socialism?

Is having police a form of socialism?


  • Total voters
    29

neil

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
1,947
Reaction score
1,253
I just saw a TV commercial with Mike Huckabee (a former POTUS candidate) for a book or something about fighting socialism for kids. One of the examples it had was defunding the police & this strikes me as odd, because I consider police to be a form of socialism.

The reason I consider police to be a form of socialism is because it takes law enforcement away from WE THE PEOPLE - a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and creates a monopoly out of it consisting of un-elected career professionals; it turns society into a prison, where police are the prison guards.

We didn't have police when US was founded, and we had law enforcement and courts, so I'm not interested in any nonsense claims that without police society would crumble. The way I see things happening, society is crumbing with and probably because of police.
 

Nomad4Ever

The tolerant left? I'm the intolerant left.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
8,323
Reaction score
10,269
Location
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
1650380871926.png
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
61,769
Reaction score
43,145
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I just saw a TV commercial with Mike Huckabee (a former POTUS candidate) for a book or something about fighting socialism for kids. One of the examples it had was defunding the police & this strikes me as odd, because I consider police to be a form of socialism.

The reason I consider police to be a form of socialism is because it takes law enforcement away from WE THE PEOPLE - a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and creates a monopoly out of it consisting of un-elected career professionals; it turns society into a prison, where police are the prison guards.

We didn't have police when US was founded, and we had law enforcement and courts, so I'm not interested in any nonsense claims that without police society would crumble. The way I see things happening, society is crumbing with and probably because of police.
I think that is a key difference many libertarians have with most of society. Libertarians tend to see emergent social behaviors as a dependable social factor. At least, this seems to be one of the unspoken assumptions I tend to come across in their arguments.

Or maybe I am seeing something that isn't there. What are your thoughts on that observation?
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
59,290
Reaction score
49,669
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Well, according to the far right government doing things is always socialism because government is bad and socialism is bad.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with this. But we do have to note the extreme depths of nuance in this view.



The reason I consider police to be a form of socialism is because it takes law enforcement away from WE THE PEOPLE - a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and creates a monopoly out of it consisting of un-elected career professionals; it turns society into a prison, where police are the prison guards.

We didn't have police when US was founded, and we had law enforcement and courts, so I'm not interested in any nonsense claims that without police society would crumble. The way I see things happening, society is crumbing with and probably because of police.

Actually, socialism is government ownership of the means of production.

And . .
.​
.​
.​
.​
We didn't have police when US was founded, and we had law enforcement and courts

I don't even want to know what kind of distinction you think you see between having police and having law enforcement. This thread gave me enough of a headache as it is.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,849
Reaction score
53,559
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No. Socialism is government ownership or control of the means of production. Laws would be useless without an enforcement mechanism - resulting in mob rule or total anarchy.

BTW, you are wrong about not having police (law enforcement personnel) when the US was founded.

 

Nomad4Ever

The tolerant left? I'm the intolerant left.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
8,323
Reaction score
10,269
Location
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I consider police to be a form of socialism
That really begs the question of what you consider to be socialism. Reading this sentence was physically painful for me. I beg you to cite a socialist magazine or prominent socialist political figure promote the police.

The reason I consider police to be a form of socialism is because it takes law enforcement away from WE THE PEOPLE - a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and creates a monopoly out of it consisting of un-elected career professionals; it turns society into a prison, where police are the prison guards.
Takes law enforcement away from we the people? So....mob justice?

We didn't have police when US was founded, and we had law enforcement and courts
Yeah...and it wasn't exactly...uhh...the best system. Witch hunts, hangings, extrajudicial judgements without a hearing, no right to a lawyer, mob justice...

Sorry, but you need a little bit more structure in legal matters than what the early American colonists had.
 

code1211

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
47,695
Reaction score
10,466
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I just saw a TV commercial with Mike Huckabee (a former POTUS candidate) for a book or something about fighting socialism for kids. One of the examples it had was defunding the police & this strikes me as odd, because I consider police to be a form of socialism.

The reason I consider police to be a form of socialism is because it takes law enforcement away from WE THE PEOPLE - a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and creates a monopoly out of it consisting of un-elected career professionals; it turns society into a prison, where police are the prison guards.

We didn't have police when US was founded, and we had law enforcement and courts, so I'm not interested in any nonsense claims that without police society would crumble. The way I see things happening, society is crumbing with and probably because of police.

Police, as you reference police here, are entities of State and Local Governments.

The US constitution leaves this and many other functions of government to the various states and to the People.

People throughout history have determined that laws without enforcement are only words. Democrats seem incapable of understanding that which history teaches and promote the idea that not enforcing laws is a good thing.

Oddly delusional.

I think you might be able to make a strong case for not maintaining a police enforcement agency at the Federal Level.
 

Dans La Lune

New Killer Star
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
7,796
Reaction score
4,782
Location
One Night in Bangkok
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I just saw a TV commercial with Mike Huckabee (a former POTUS candidate) for a book or something about fighting socialism for kids. One of the examples it had was defunding the police & this strikes me as odd, because I consider police to be a form of socialism.

The reason I consider police to be a form of socialism is because it takes law enforcement away from WE THE PEOPLE - a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and creates a monopoly out of it consisting of un-elected career professionals; it turns society into a prison, where police are the prison guards.

We didn't have police when US was founded, and we had law enforcement and courts, so I'm not interested in any nonsense claims that without police society would crumble. The way I see things happening, society is crumbing with and probably because of police.

Here's the real catch: Without government there wouldn't be a society to crumble.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,849
Reaction score
53,559
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Police, as you reference police here, are entities of State and Local Governments.

The US constitution leaves this and many other functions of government to the various states and to the People.

People throughout history have determined that laws without enforcement are only words. Democrats seem incapable of understanding that which history teaches and promote the idea that not enforcing laws is a good thing.

Oddly delusional.

I think you might be able to make a strong case for not maintaining a police enforcement agency at the Federal Level.

Nope, otherwise we would have open borders, no enforcement of interstate or international commerce regulations and federal tax evasion on an even larger scale.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
19,125
Reaction score
11,220
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That really begs the question of what you consider to be socialism. Reading this sentence was physically painful for me. I beg you to cite a socialist magazine or prominent socialist political figure promote the police.

 

Nomad4Ever

The tolerant left? I'm the intolerant left.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
8,323
Reaction score
10,269
Location
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left

Nomad4Ever

The tolerant left? I'm the intolerant left.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
8,323
Reaction score
10,269
Location
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Honestly I'm still reeling from this post. How does one become so deluded about socialism that they have a more extreme anti-police position than most people on the left do.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,819
Reaction score
52,065
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I just saw a TV commercial with Mike Huckabee (a former POTUS candidate) for a book or something about fighting socialism for kids. One of the examples it had was defunding the police & this strikes me as odd, because I consider police to be a form of socialism.

The reason I consider police to be a form of socialism is because it takes law enforcement away from WE THE PEOPLE - a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and creates a monopoly out of it consisting of un-elected career professionals; it turns society into a prison, where police are the prison guards.

We didn't have police when US was founded, and we had law enforcement and courts, so I'm not interested in any nonsense claims that without police society would crumble. The way I see things happening, society is crumbing with and probably because of police.


Well, yes and no.

A good test, from a libertarian perspective, regarding whether a given task should be done by government, is as follows: is it an essential task? will it be done *better* by government, or not done at all if gov doesn't do it?

Defense, for example, meets that test.

Police, well sorta. Our modern version of policing is quite problematic in many ways, obviously. I have advocated for many years that we need major reform from the foundation up.

But doing without police entirely... from a practical standpoint that isn't such a good idea. While I do think communities should be much more involved in keeping the peace and so forth, there are good reasons for having a professional police force.

Areas without such tended to either devolve into strong-man-rule or vigilantes. The problem with vigilantes is they tend not to adhere to due process, reasonable evidence standards, and so on. Look up San Franciso and read about the "Vigilance committees" and what a mess that was.

If police weren't being constantly called out to deal with every little fracas and argument, pushed by politicians to enforce every petty law and minor statute, we might be able to reduce and streamline the police force... but a lot of policing has become "revenue enhancement" or worse.

Standards and training need to be higher. Peels' Principles would be a good place to start reforming.

But inherently socialist? Not really, imho.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
19,125
Reaction score
11,220
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Honestly I'm still reeling from this post. How does one become so deluded about socialism that they have a more extreme anti-police position than most people on the left do.

The only thing you are reeling g from is getting called out on your lie
 

SkyChief

US Veteran
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
2,542
Reaction score
1,997
Location
SoCal
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
. . . . We didn't have police when US was founded, and we had law enforcement and courts, . . .
True.

The first bona fide "police department" was established in Boston, Massachusetts in 1838. The officers were full-time law enforcement, paid by the city - - not connected with "Night watchmen"

Ironically, Boston police were there to fight socialism - i.e., keep the socialists and labor movement rabble under control, and busting labor strikes.

source: http://blogs.und.edu/und-today/2020/10/pay-police-officers-more/
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,819
Reaction score
52,065
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Or any substantive 'freedom', either!

True enough. The place where I part company with extreme libertarianism: to really have functional freedom, you need *just the right amount of government*. Too little can be as bad as too much.

Too little and you're afraid to go to the grocery store.
 

Nomad4Ever

The tolerant left? I'm the intolerant left.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
8,323
Reaction score
10,269
Location
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,849
Reaction score
53,559
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Or any substantive 'freedom', either!

Of course, having a government does not mean that it will not abuse its power to seriously limit freedom. Civil asset forfeiture and creating (selectively enforced) contraband lists are prime examples. Once upon a time, personal property could only be taken by the state (without compensation) after due process of law resulted in criminal conviction. Once upon a time, it took constitutional amendment to federally ban (the recreational drug) alcohol nationwide, later it took only adding items to a controlled and dangerous substances list.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
19,125
Reaction score
11,220
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Of course, having a government does not mean that it will not abuse its power to seriously limit freedom. Civil asset forfeiture and creating (selectively enforced) contraband lists are prime examples. Once upon a time, personal property could only be taken by the state (without compensation) after due process of law resulted in criminal conviction. Once upon a time, it took constitutional amendment to federally ban (the recreational drug) alcohol nationwide, later it took only adding items to a controlled and dangerous substances list.

It's more than that, it's a treaty agreed on by congress within their power granted by the constitution
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
28,112
Reaction score
10,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No. Socialism is government ownership or control of the means of production. Laws would be useless without an enforcement mechanism - resulting in mob rule or total anarchy.

BTW, you are wrong about not having police (law enforcement personnel) when the US was founded.

I think it’s important to define terms. The govt/people owning the means of production is one definition that brings Marx to mind, calling the police, fire dept, FEMA, FDA, Post Office socialist is another, comparing the US relative emphasis on the free market compared to Europe is another, and Republicans use of “socialist!” as an epithet still one more.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,819
Reaction score
52,065
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's more than that, it's a treaty agreed on by congress within their power granted by the constitution

It is highly debatable that Congress' power to ratify treaties with foreign governments, was EVER intended to limit the liberty of US citizens, or cause US citizens to be incarcerated, in America, for breaking some foreign law.
 
Top Bottom