• 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
Goshin said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous, citizens had very little liberty when the constitution was created. Personal freedoms wernt recognized until 1925.
 
Crovax said:
That's ridiculous, citizens had very little liberty when the constitution was created. Personal freedoms wernt recognized until 1925.
Click to expand...


....

Never mind.

1650384834798.png
 
Goshin said:
....

Never mind.

View attachment 67386384
Click to expand...

Face palm all you want but you are ignoring history. Even if the federal govt was prohibited from limiting some right, state and local governments were not. There was no recognized personal rights until Gitlow v. New York (1925)
 
Crovax said:
Face palm all you want but you are ignoring history. Even if the federal govt was prohibited from limiting some right, state and local governments were not. There was no recognized personal rights until Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Click to expand...

You said, quote, "citizens had little liberty when the constitution was first created".

The implications of that statement, as written, are colossally and utterly wrong. I could go into pages of detail but I can't be arsed to bother.

If you don't want to be misunderstood then be more precise. The recognition to which you refer is very different from the reality of individual liberty in 1789.
 
Goshin said:
"citizens had little liberty when the constitution was first created"
Click to expand...
Well if you expand citizens to mean everyone in the US at it's inception and not just White landowning men...then that's about an objectively correct statement as one can make.
 
Goshin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe it's fair to debate the point of demarcation where the ideal point lies, on the continuum of too little & too much government & regulation. However, I'm not sure how one can successfully debate there should be no government or rule of law.

In my early-in-life Libertarian period, I too held the mantra of less laws resulted in 'more freedom'. Wow, was I wrong!

A perfect example might be in where I currently reside, versus where I used to reside. I currently live in a local municipal jurisdiction that has very strong codes & code enforcement. Quite honestly, it is the cleanest, quietest, safest, most civil & peaceful place I've ever lived. I love the quality of life here! And, I've come to believe a large component of my quality of life is due to the rigid codes & code enforcement.

There's no way I could enjoy this quality of life, attached to a very large metro area, otherwise. The only alternative might be to move out to a rural area, and surround myself with a bunch of acres I own, where I can independently control my immediate surroundings in entirety (I have considered this). Otherwise, if we need to interact with others in close proximity, we have to have a regulated structure to ensure our freedoms. Sad, but true. It took me some time to realize this! (hint: I'm no longer a Libertarian!)
 
Crovax said:
Face palm all you want but you are ignoring history. Even if the federal govt was prohibited from limiting some right, state and local governments were not. There was no recognized personal rights until Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Click to expand...

That’s not quite true (due to the individual rights protected by states’ constitutions), but it did take a while for the meaning (interpretation?) of the 14A to be made clear by the SCOTUS.

The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Landmark Cases . Barron v. Baltimore (1833) | PBS

www.thirteen.org
 
Goshin said:
You said, quote, "citizens had little liberty when the constitution was first created".

The implications of that statement, as written, are colossally and utterly wrong. I could go into pages of detail but I can't be arsed to bother.

If you don't want to be misunderstood then be more precise. The recognition to which you refer is very different from the reality of individual liberty in 1789.
Click to expand...

Citizens had lots of privileges back then but few rights. Maybe that would have been more accurate to describe daily life but we were specifically talking and law and the constitution. So why you would think in the wrong context?

As far as the founders go it's entirely conceivable that they intend to all for treaties that restricted rights of citizens
 
neil said:
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.
Click to expand...
Police could be considered socialism in the regard that everyone pays for it whether you use them or not, there is no choice in the payment, and they are government controlled imo.
 
Crovax said:
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961)
Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971)
United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988)
Click to expand...

OK, but federal controlled substances laws predated those treaties.

With the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, Congress began in earnest to regulate the domestic trade in narcotic drugs. The Harrison Act imposed federal oversight of the legal trade in narcotic drugs and imposed criminal penalties for illicit trafficking in narcotics. Over the course of the 20th century, the list of drugs subject to federal control expanded beyond narcotic drugs to include marijuana, depressants, stimulants, and hallucinogens.
Click to expand...

 
neil said:
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.
Click to expand...
1. You should probably look up the definition of "socialism". That last time I looked, there wasn't a private police industry.

2. We did have police in colonial days...they just went by a different title, like Sheriff. But they then, like today, were law enforcement and they were controlled by the government and the courts.

www.jeffersoncountysheriffsfoundation.org

THE EARLY DAYS OF AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT - Jefferson County Sheriff's Foundation

The Watch More than 350 years ago, America’s first known system of law enforcement was established in Boston. As soon… Read More
www.jeffersoncountysheriffsfoundation.org

Policing Colonial America

Many European law enforcement institutions were transplanted in the colonies. The county sheriff The most important law enforcement official in colonial Amer
www.cliffsnotes.com www.cliffsnotes.com

So...the correct answer to your poll is, of course, no.
 
Mycroft said:
1. You should probably look up the definition of "socialism". That last time I looked, there wasn't a private police industry.

2. We did have police in colonial days...they just went by a different title, like Sheriff. But they then, like today, were law enforcement and they were controlled by the government and the courts.

www.jeffersoncountysheriffsfoundation.org

THE EARLY DAYS OF AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT - Jefferson County Sheriff's Foundation

The Watch More than 350 years ago, America’s first known system of law enforcement was established in Boston. As soon… Read More
www.jeffersoncountysheriffsfoundation.org

Policing Colonial America

Many European law enforcement institutions were transplanted in the colonies. The county sheriff The most important law enforcement official in colonial Amer
www.cliffsnotes.com www.cliffsnotes.com

So...the correct answer to your poll is, of course, no.
Click to expand...
Plus sheriffs are elected with police are appointed.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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.

Police: History - Early Policing In Colonial America

law.jrank.org
Click to expand...
Actually I think the definition has expanded over time due to the socialism's usual accompanying totalitarian regime. But police are not socialism the way they traditionally operate in America.
 
neil said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, having police is not socialism. Socialism is an economic theory concerned primarily with production and wealth. Security is just a service citizens buy with that wealth.

And we did have policing when the US was founded. Policing goes back thousands of years as a standard civil service.
 
I said no, but here’s the caveat: I’m applying the real definition of socialism as an economic theory.

If we use the right’s current definition then the answer would be yes according to their logic…even though they will enforced to say no.
 
Modern day policing is based on the work of sir robert peel. Note the similarity in his argument with many americans today.
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/candp/prevention/g08/g08cs2.htm
Early 19th century London, with a population of nearly a million and a half people, was policed by 450 constables and 4,500 night watchmen. Their effectiveness was weakened because they belonged to different organisations, all jealous of their own powers.
Attempts by the government to deal with the situation by setting up a police force for London met with lots of opposition:

  • People were suspicious of a large force, possibly armed. They feared it could be used to suppress protest and support military dictatorship.
  • Paris had the best-known, best-organised, paid police force. Britain was at war with France from 1793 to 1815, so many people hated the idea of anything French on principle.
  • People did not think it was the job of the government to set up and control a police force; it should be under local control.
  • The Mayor and Corporation of the City of London refused to be part of a London-wide force.
Click to expand...
But it quickly diverged from his solution to those problems.
When Sir Robert Peel became Home Secretary, he was determined to deal with London's policing problems.......The government was anxious to avoid any suggestion that the police was a military force, so they were not armed. Nor was their uniform anything like military uniform.
Click to expand...
Where as american police are armed and they do sport a military look with uniforms. You have an army not a police force.
 
Chomsky said:
.... The only alternative might be to move out to a rural area, and surround myself with a bunch of acres I own, where I can independently control my immediate surroundings in entirety (I have considered this). Otherwise, if we need to interact with others in close proximity, we have to have a regulated structure to ensure our freedoms. Sad, but true. It took me some time to realize this! (hint: I'm no longer a Libertarian!)
Click to expand...

You just described my choice of living arrangements. :)
 
Goshin said:
You just described my choice of living arrangements. :)
Click to expand...

I toy with the idea, but never get 'actionable' serious.

Obviously, there are a lot of trade-offs.

However, that day may occur.

And good for you, having accomplished the lifestyle you prefer. I definitely see the appeal! (y)
 
Chomsky said:
I toy with the idea, but never get 'actionable' serious.

Obviously, there are a lot of trade-offs.

However, that day may occur.

And good for you, having accomplished the lifestyle you prefer. I definitely see the appeal! (y)
Click to expand...


I was fortunate, in that I came from a line of farmers who still owned a substantial acreage.
I did try city living as a young man, and determined that it was not for me. When the question of inheritance arose, I asked to have the old farm and let my sisters inherit the more-easily-resold houses, which was agreeable to all.

I likes my elbow room.
 
Goshin said:
I was fortunate, in that I came from a line of farmers who still owned a substantial acreage.
I did try city living as a young man, and determined that it was not for me. When the question of inheritance arose, I asked to have the old farm and let my sisters inherit the more-easily-resold houses, which was agreeable to all.

I likes my elbow room.
Click to expand...
Wash's Stegosaurus: Yes. Yes, this is a fertile land, and we will thrive. We will rule over all this land, and we will call it... "This Land.".
Wash's Allosaurus: I think we should call it "your grave!".
Stegosaurus: Ah, curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
Allosaurus: Har har har! Mine is an evil laugh! Now die!
[The Allosaurus attacks the Stegosaurus.]
Stegosaurus: Oh, no, God! Oh, dear God in heaven!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom