Is having police a form of socialism?

[Goshin]

Where can anyone get a job that isn't high-stress? If they were easy to come by I think practically everyone would be taking those jobs instead of the ones they have. I think just about everyone thinks of their job as low paying; I'd be interested to find someone who thinks their job pays them what they think they deserve or more. I work for a healthcare organization with hospitals, which are 24/7/365 operations, and the higher ups are salaried positions; it's the same with them, they also have to work extra hours and don't get overtime or extra pay.

What I'm saying is that it's easy for anyone in any job to say that they're rather quit than do something they'd rather not do, but very difficult for them not to do what their boss tells them to do. People who have a job have it because they need it and it's what they can get, so their job and the paycheck they get from it often very precious to them, otherwise they probably wouldn't have that job in the first place.


It's not so much that it would free them from that; generally it wouldn't be desirable or acceptable. Constitutional laws should be enforced. What it does do is make it a less difficult for them to enforce stupid unconstitutional laws.

The incentive for localized elected law enforcement to enforce constitutional laws is that if they don't enforce them, then it's not out of sight and out of mind when someone is victimized and they're the ones who have to do something about it & are expected to do something about it. Maybe you can tell me as a former police officer - would you describe it as being a bit out of sight and out of mind when someone you never knew fell victim to a crime?

I'm not even sure how to answer most of that. Yeah, everybody thinks their paycheck is important, but people get mad and quit all the time too.

As for out of sight, out of mind... all I can tell you is I took the oath seriously. I put my life on the line to protect people I'd never met five seconds earlier, without hesitation, and I had a wife and toddler at home.

I don't know that electing them individually is going to change the fact that what you want is quality people for whom the job is a calling, not an occupation.

 

[neil]

If you want a cop available, without having to go outside your district, you need at least 4 to cover 24/7 shifts. Minimum.

Otherwise what do you do when the Sheriff of Bramblewood Subdivision is asleep, or out of state to settle his deceased Auntie June's affairs?

Well, we shouldn't be too dependent on cops, especially given that generally they show up after a crime has been committed and the perps have already left the scene. Part of the idea of keeping and bearing arms is that it incentivizes people not to mess around with others by committing crimes, meaning the crime rate would greatly drop from what it is these days.

Pull from another district, but that's someone you didn't elect,

I don't think there's anything wrong with pulling from another district; they were elected by their district, and they're only covering for a very brief amount of time - hours, days, or a couple weeks at the most. They'd still have their deputies who already know how they run things & in the long run if there's a worst case scenario where someone isn't satisfied that law enforcement duties were handled properly; elected law enforcement officer will be back soon enough to resolve that & obviously that's not a situation like we have now, where un-elected career professionals are in their positions for decades.

and who's covering for HIM while he's covering for you?

LOL Do you really see this as a dilemma? This is no different from any other job or business where someone goes on vacation, gets sick and can't come into work, etc. and someone else has to cover for them, and people manage.

 

[neil]

The above isn't even taking into account situations (most of them) where you want more than one cop on-scene.

I'm sure you know as a former police officer that even entire police departments will sometimes have to ask other police departments for and provide each other with support.

I'm not saying limit each district to only 1 law enforcement officer or agent; they should still have deputies. A sheriff or constable can't be awake all 24 hours of a day. Personally I think law enforcement should always consist of a pair of individuals working closely together. The only difference I'm saying is that the districts should be smaller, meaning more sheriffs or constables; right now the county I live in has almost 500,000 residents & there's only 1 sheriff for the whole county, including the towns & cities in the county; one of the neighboring counties has over 1 million. I don't think a sheriff or constable should personally know every single individual in their district, but I think they should know a significant percentage of them & the degrees of separation for those they don't know personally should be limited to a maximum of 1 for most & 2 for very few (to keep the out of sight & out of mind mentality to a minimum); I don't think districts with 500,000 or over a million residents can achieve this.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I'm only going to stick to the thread topic - which is police, not roads or fire departments; road workers & firefighters aren't law enforcement agents.

Your topic is wrong. So really there’s nothing much to stick to. Of course you don’t want to compare other public services because you know that makes your point super absurd.

I think saying so would go contrary to their agenda, so I don't believe there are any socialists who would be saying this; I'd have to see examples to believe this (you haven't provided any, yet) & it would also be perplexing to me if they really did exist. Since I'm not a socialist, I can only conjecture that if they really are saying this, then they don't even realize the adverse effect.

Socialists bring up public services, like police, like the fire department, like the roads, as examples of socialism all the time.

I agree, and this is another reason why I don't buy this assertion that socialists are saying this is because they appear to be in league with the Defund the Police movement;

The defund the police movement comprises many different factions, but largely they don’t actually want the police defunded, they want politically loyal police and the purpose is to purge police departments

if socialists admit that police are a socialist institution, then in order to not contradict themselves, we would see them defending police rather than pretending they're trying to get rid of them.

They say it all the time. You would know this if you spent any time in online political discourse

It could also be that people who are ignorant don't recognize that police are a socialist institution, or they don't recognize socialism in general. There could be people who don't realize that they're socialists and think they're opposed to socialism; it could be that actually they're only opposed to a certain versions of socialism.

You’re really contorting yourself in pretzels to justify a bad premise.

Including the unconstitutional laws. They also do things that are unconstitutional, such as when they infringe on the 5th Amendment right to life.

There is no 5th amendment right to life

This doesn't cover all of their problems, such as the corruption and abuse of power.

So what?

You appear to be responding to a "why" question, but I didn't ask a "why" question or any question at all.


If you're referring to literal prisons, then this is a defamatory strawman; I never said anything about letting most violent people out of prisons; if you're referring to what I was saying in the OP about turning society into a prison, then I guess that means you no longer think I'm wrong as you stated in post #106 (which is good).

Well you claimed earlier we needed no police, and so if we need no police then why do we need prisons? Now you’re saying we need law enforcement. Thanks for confession. Debate over.

So you've abandoned your sentence fragment?

Midwit move.

 

[neil]

I'm not even sure how to answer most of that. Yeah, everybody thinks their paycheck is important, but people get mad and quit all the time too.

As for out of sight, out of mind... all I can tell you is I took the oath seriously. I put my life on the line to protect people I'd never met five seconds earlier, without hesitation, and I had a wife and toddler at home.

I don't know that electing them individually is going to change the fact that what you want is quality people for whom the job is a calling, not an occupation.

How do you feel about socialism (in general)?

 

[neil]

Your topic is wrong.

Topics aren't wrong; they're chosen & engaged in or not engaged in. Answers to question can be wrong. Decisions can be wrong. Your decision to refer to a topic as wrong is wrong.

So really there’s nothing much to stick to.

If you don't like the topic of this thread, then I suggest you stop posting on this thread & create your own thread with the "right" topic.

Of course you don’t want to compare other public services because you know that makes your point super absurd.

This thread isn't about me.

Socialists bring up public services, like police, like the fire department, like the roads, as examples of socialism all the time.

If socialists brought up police as an example of socialism all the time, then you'd be able to show me; you have failed to show me, so I can only conclude that you're making this up. Don't bother wasting your time bringing it up without showing me; that's not going to change anything.

The defund the police movement comprises many different factions, but largely they don’t actually want the police defunded, they want politically loyal police and the purpose is to purge police departments

Exactly! I think you're absolutely right about this & I'd go one step further and say that they've been doing this all along.

They say it all the time. You would know this if you spent any time in online political discourse

Which are you referring to, them saying defund the police, or them admitting that having police is a part of socialism?

You’re really contorting yourself in pretzels to justify a bad premise.

Or maybe it's you who's really contorting yourself in pretzels to deny true premises and a valid argument.

There is no 5th amendment right to life

False.

Behold! The 5th Amendment and the part about right to life:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

So what?

So it's off topic.

Well you claimed earlier we needed no police, and so if we need no police then why do we need prisons?

What do prisons have to do with police?

Now you’re saying we need law enforcement.

Are you ok? I ever said that we don't need law enforcement.

Thanks for confession.

My pleasure!

Debate over.

Ok.

Midwit move.

I find it amusing that you have to make it about me rather than the topic. I don't care. I don't matter to the topic; the issue of the topic exists regardless of whether or not I myself exist.

 

[uptower]

In a modern democracy it usually is a form of "socialism" as it is paid for directly by the public and serves the public good. They are there for everyone's protection.

In other forms of government and historically they were tools of the state to project the rulers' power upon the people and public order was a secondary benefit.

But let's make something clear: righties can't pick and choose which forms of public spending they want to call "socialism" as a refrain. It is not the case that macho stuff like cops and firemen and warships are any different from medicaid or food stamps when they're all paid out of the public coffer. We can nitpick over what we think is more necessary at any given time, but they're all "socialism" in that respect.

 

[Goshin]

How do you feel about socialism (in general)?

As a Red Blooded American Patriot (tm), I'm against it. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I said, exactly...

 

[neil]

(part 1 of 3)

As a Red Blooded American Patriot (tm), I'm against it.

Good deal!

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I said, exactly...

Part of the reason for asking is essentially because that's what the topic of this thread is about; it's not only you that I'd like to ask, it's anyone taking a position on the topic (but I didn't exactly set up this thread for that).

Another part of the reason has to do with your reply in the post I'm responding to (#126), mainly the last part.

One of the things that has become rather obvious to me from this thread (as I'm pretty sure you have noticed) is that people seem to associate socialism with (and only with - in a manner of speaking) public vs. private ownership. There are two problems with this perception.

One of the problems with this perception is that the distinction between something that is socialism and something that isn't socialism in the economic or fiscal sense isn't private vs public ownership; private vs public ownership is actually free market in either case; In other words, a company or business can be either private or public, and in neither case does that make for socialism.

I think, in general, people recognize that when we have companies or businesses with shares that can be bought and sold on the stock market, that doesn't mean we have socialism; it only basically means that private owners are keeping ownership of their companies or businesses all to themselves.

I guess some people confuse 3 different types of ownership concepts (for businesses or companies) with only 2 different types; the 3 are (1) private ownership, (2) public ownership, and (3) common ownership; it seems to me that some people confuse 2 & 3 as being the same.

While I'm on this, I'll also bring up one way that socialism is defined or described, which has a flaw or problem in it; I'm sure some have heard (or claimed) that socialism is a system where property and the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by society. One problem is that this description seems to be vague about distinguishing between a system where all or only some property and the means of production are collectively owned by society. Depending on how people define socialism, communism, and Marxism, it might only be 1 of them, or 2 of them, or all 3 of them, etc.

Some might also associate any system with some common ownership of certain types of property and means of production as socialism; for example, we have common ownership of the roadways/highways. I happen to hold the position as a libertarian (or if you want to be a bit more specific, I suppose I could say "centrist libertarian"), not that we have common ownership of the bulk of the roadways/highways, but that there ought to be more of an absence of their ownership. In this example it's nothing more than hair splitting or semantics, because in this case there's practically no difference between the "absence" of ownership of something and "common" ownership of something.

I'm not going to dwell on this too much on how I perceive the concept of socialism on this thread, but basically the way I see socialism is as a system that takes away too much control or decision making away from the individual and gives it to the collective (anarchism would be the opposite, too much control or decision making taken away from the collective and given to the individual).

The idea that there's common ownership (or absence of ownership) of the roadways/highways doesn't in itself make that out to be socialism, or - in other words (my words) - too much control taken away from the individual that's given to the collective; there's an equilibrium in control of the roadways/highways - neither the individual nor the collective has more entitlement to them over the other (i.e., everyone takes turns </pun> using them).

 

[neil]

(part 2 of 3)

As a libertarian (in general), it's my philosophy that a free market system is the best for making the quality and progress of the economy better (than what we get from a socialist system); there are issues I have with the philosophies of others who call themselves libertarians, or those who claim to be pro free market (regardless of whether they call themselves libertarian, conservative, liberal, etc.), but that's for another time or thread.

This includes who we elect, and the legal & government system & services that we have no choice in the matter. We do have a choice in the matter when it comes to what store we want to go to, to buy something, and which brand of something we're going to buy, or even to choose to simply not go to the store and buy any brand; in other words, there's no mandate that I must (or must not) go to the store and buy lobster for dinner tonight, or brand X vs brand Y paper towels; no one's putting a gun to anyone's head, in those types of matters. This doesn't apply to some decisions, such as whether to comply with the law; we can't just arbitrarily decide that we're going to take our neighbor's stuff one afternoon because we don't feel like observing the "no stealing" laws at that moment.

There are some things or situations where we ought to have a choice in the matter & others where we shouldn't. We should be able to decide what we want for dinner; the government shouldn't be in the business of compelling (or prohibiting) anyone to have lobster, or chicken, or a cheeseburger. Same with brands of paper towels, shoes, light bulbs, toothpaste, etc. Government should only be in the business of certain things like law enforcement, so it should be compelling people to obey the law.

 

[neil]

(part 3 of 3)

When it comes to who's in charge of enforcing the law (in a "district"), that should be a choice that people (the collective of that "district") can and do make. If the people in a "district" can't choose who's in charge of their law enforcement, then that means that someone they didn't choose is in charge of law enforcement; that's analogous to having a private company in charge of law enforcement (where the chief of police is analogous to the private owner of that "company"). The difference between who's in charge of law enforcement, and having lobster for dinner or paper towel brands, is that we have to obey the law - we have no choice, but we don't have to eat lobster for dinner or buy brand X paper towels.

Now that I think of it, maybe I'm wrong about my assertion that this has nothing to do with private vs public, but people who do see it that way may have it backwards. It seems people associate having un-elected career professional law enforcement with being the "public" system, and elected public servants in charge of law enforcement as the "private" system, but they're wrong. The elected version is the public system, and the un-elected would be the private system.

Anyhow, getting back to the last part of your post #126, where you're talking about "quality people" for the "job" (as you put it), it's the community that law enforcement are serving who should be determining what that quality ought to be, and that's not something they can do when they're not elected.

If I like the quality of brand X paper towels more than brand Y, then I can choose to buy brand X and not buy brand Y; I can't do that with law enforcement if I can't elect them. Every time I go shopping for paper towels, I'm "voting" for one brand over another; if at any time the quality of paper towels switches, I change my "vote". It's up to the paper towel brands to keep up the quality of their product so I'll "vote" for them; otherwise they go out of business, because no one is "voting" for them. Same goes with what I have for dinner every night, I'm "voting" for lobster, chicken, cheeseburger, a carrot, etc. (or maybe I'm even choosing to skip dinner, once in a while).

If an un-elected police chief for a "district" is doing a lousy job of running the police department - bringing in bad quality individuals, then too bad for the people of that "district" (for how ever long that police chief is in charge, which could be decades). If an elected sheriff does a lousy job with law enforcement, then they don't get re-elected. Being able to elect law enforcement is insurance for making sure we good quality people in law enforcement.

Don't get me wrong; I think most of the individuals who choose to become law enforcement are doing so because they want to help their community and care about it. However, we cannot simply ignore the fact that something's going wrong with law enforcement when someone like George Floyd dies at the hands - literally - of police (whether it's bad department policies, bad training, or bad apples), or are being used to disarm the public and render the public dependent on them - regardless of the quality of service to compensate for that, or the consequential increase in crime, or worse.

 

[Common Sense 1]

If the thin blue line did not exist we would not have a livable society.

 

[neil]

If the thin blue line did not exist we would not have a livable society.

What does this mean, and what does it have to do with the topic of this thread? What is this "thing blue line"? I'd also like to know what you mean specifically by "livable."

 

[Common Sense 1]

What does this mean, and what does it have to do with the topic of this thread? What is this "thing blue line"? I'd also like to know what you mean specifically by "livable."

Thin blue line are the police.

livable

lĭv′ə-bəl

adjective​

1. Suitable to live in; habitable.
2. Possible to bear; endurable.
3. Such as can be lived.

 

[neil]

Thin blue line are the police.

livable

lĭv′ə-bəl

adjective​

1. Suitable to live in; habitable.
2. Possible to bear; endurable.
3. Such as can be lived.

You neglected to explain what it has to do with the topic of this thread, and what you said is just a claim, not an argument. Until you make an argument, I have to summarily dismiss your claim.

 

[Goshin]

...

Anyhow, getting back to the last part of your post #126, where you're talking about "quality people" for the "job" (as you put it), it's the community that law enforcement are serving who should be determining what that quality ought to be, and that's not something they can do when they're not elected.

I...

If an un-elected police chief for a "district" is doing a lousy job of running the police department - bringing in bad quality individuals, then too bad for the people of that "district" (for how ever long that police chief is in charge, which could be decades). If an elected sheriff does a lousy job with law enforcement, then they don't get re-elected. Being able to elect law enforcement is insurance for making sure we good quality people in law enforcement.
...

I get your point.

Allow me to counter by saying that electing people to an office does not appear to guarantee quality service. Case in point, the legislature, the presidency, etc.

NOW I'll concede that if we were talking about smaller "districts" where fewer people are electing fewer representatives (or local police chiefs or whatever), fewer people are involved, there's less question about who is responsible, and the incumbent has less chance to avoid being held accountable for poor police service.

There are some caveats. Police training and hiring standards are typically set by the State. Department policy is largely set in accord with state and local laws, with some input from the lawyers regarding liability, and more than a little input from the relevant City council, county council, or whatnot. My point being that electing local chiefs may have a beneficial effect, but maybe a more limited one than you think.

 

[neil]

I get your point.

Allow me to counter by saying that electing people to an office does not appear to guarantee quality service. Case in point, the legislature, the presidency, etc.

NOW I'll concede that if we were talking about smaller "districts" where fewer people are electing fewer representatives (or local police chiefs or whatever), fewer people are involved, there's less question about who is responsible, and the incumbent has less chance to avoid being held accountable for poor police service.

There are some caveats. Police training and hiring standards are typically set by the State. Department policy is largely set in accord with state and local laws, with some input from the lawyers regarding liability, and more than a little input from the relevant City council, county council, or whatnot. My point being that electing local chiefs may have a beneficial effect, but maybe a more limited one than you think.

That's ok; they're set by the state just like laws are set by the state, and we do elect state legislator office holders; as long as they're constitutional (both state and federal), I generally don't or won't have a problem with that.

This thread is more about who the individuals are going to be at large roaming the streets enforcing the laws in the community, sportin' a badge and a uniform, arresting & putting handcuffs on people, carrying weapons and using them to enforce the law, who decides who gets into those positions, and how long they get to be in those positions.

I'm for expectations from an elected sheriff to meet constitutional standards set by the state legislature with the personnel they deputize; it doesn't make sense to have someone in a position without the necessary qualifications - training, criminal background check, etc. Hiring & training standards prevent a small number of individuals who aren't suitable for a position from being in them; it's a good constraint to have for law enforcement or any position in general (that's just business).