|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 12 2020 12:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2020 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2020 09:55 Wegandi wrote:Gee, I would have never guessed that the answer to the police enforcement issues are, wait for it, new Government programs. Look, crime statistics indicate low trends with historically low rates of crime committed (esp. of the violent nature). There's not this gigantic issue of crime that needs addressing - the police and the laws they enforce are the heart of the problem. The less interactions the citizen has with the police the better, and you do that by eradicating the pretense for interaction (e.g. enforcement of laws / penal codes / civil codes). By not putting an axe to the penal codes and framing this as welfare issue is par for the course for those whose answer to all woes is more Government money and programs. (I know I'll hear the reverse that all my solutions are destroy the Government, but that's only 90% right) So, step 1: - Destroy 95% of the functions associated with police today: SWAT, Non-violent "crimes", civil code enforcement, civil asset forfeitures, etc. Step 2: - Eradicate barriers to promote non-violent interactions with citizens: QI, Union/Thin Blue Line ethos, Military Regalia, DA/Police interaction, improve "good cop" protections for those who report unethical actions and behaviors (umbrella of Thin Blue Line), etc. Step 3: - Elect politicians who will roll back encroachments on our liberties by abolishing 90%+ penal and civil codes thereby decreasing cop/citizen interaction. You want cops out of black neighborhoods, end the drug war. Not some stupid WPA 2.0. Illuminate the cockroaches. http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2016/Were I to credit official claims regarding the abilities of law enforcement officers, I would express disappointed surprise at your inability to recognize the elements of that offense. Since I've studied law enforcement for more than a quarter-century, your performance is precisely what I expected.
Why aren't you incandescent with rage over crimes committed by police, against police -- and the public at large -- when they steal from funds supposedly dedicated to providing for wounded officers, and the families of officers who have died on-duty? I am mortally disgusted by such behavior, and that reaction ripens into rage when I see how "blue privilege" continues to protect such offenders, who are routinely given lenient sentences and sometimes allowed to keep their subsidized pensions. It's odd that this is apparent to a purported miscreant like myself, while being ignored by an upstanding paragon of civic righteousness such as yourself.
You are doubtless aware....
No, strike that; going on the evidence [above] I would be unwise to entertain a generous estimate of your awareness.
A long line of judicial precedents documents that police officers have no enforceable duty to protect any individual citizen from criminal violence. This is even true when one is literally being hacked to death just a few feet away while apprehending an armed psychopath who had eluded the police. Take a second and Google "Joe Lozito" for the details of that case. Lozito subdued a knife-wielding serial killer while a member of your bold fraternity of badge-wearing badasses cowered behind a subway door just a few feet away. While Lozito was recuperating in the hospital, the cowardly officer was being feted as a "hero" -- and the city dismissed Lozito's legal claim by invoking the well-settled doctrine that the police have no particularized duty to protect the public.
Slogans about the selfless service of law enforcement don't find traction among people who have studied the issue to any depth. The ideas aren't really the sticking point, because while your solution is woefully incomplete in my opinion, they aren't in opposition of abolitionist movements (other than your opposition to addressing poverty with a social safety net). The problem is step 3 has to come before the other two and the two party-fptp system (and the corruption entrenched within) makes that a practical impossibility. As well as you just ignoring the role poverty plays in policing. They were slave catchers in the South but started as security forces for wealthy traders and union busters in the North. The mistake you're making imo is not seeing the role of police beyond "crime", to their role as protectors of capital. It's the same misfit thinking that rationalizes maiming, beating, and potentially killing people in order to protect inanimate objects like glass windows. I don't understand the distinction you are drawing between "crime" and breaking windows.
Maybe my point would be clearer articulated this way:
Between slave, slave catcher, and slave owner who would you say was engaging in "crime" in the "escape, capture, enslave" dynamic?
|
Such a dramatic example. The crime is breaking windows. The crime is leaving debt unpaid (NOT FORCED SLAVERY). The crime is horrific work conditions.
|
On July 12 2020 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2020 12:40 IgnE wrote:On July 12 2020 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2020 09:55 Wegandi wrote:Gee, I would have never guessed that the answer to the police enforcement issues are, wait for it, new Government programs. Look, crime statistics indicate low trends with historically low rates of crime committed (esp. of the violent nature). There's not this gigantic issue of crime that needs addressing - the police and the laws they enforce are the heart of the problem. The less interactions the citizen has with the police the better, and you do that by eradicating the pretense for interaction (e.g. enforcement of laws / penal codes / civil codes). By not putting an axe to the penal codes and framing this as welfare issue is par for the course for those whose answer to all woes is more Government money and programs. (I know I'll hear the reverse that all my solutions are destroy the Government, but that's only 90% right) So, step 1: - Destroy 95% of the functions associated with police today: SWAT, Non-violent "crimes", civil code enforcement, civil asset forfeitures, etc. Step 2: - Eradicate barriers to promote non-violent interactions with citizens: QI, Union/Thin Blue Line ethos, Military Regalia, DA/Police interaction, improve "good cop" protections for those who report unethical actions and behaviors (umbrella of Thin Blue Line), etc. Step 3: - Elect politicians who will roll back encroachments on our liberties by abolishing 90%+ penal and civil codes thereby decreasing cop/citizen interaction. You want cops out of black neighborhoods, end the drug war. Not some stupid WPA 2.0. Illuminate the cockroaches. http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2016/Were I to credit official claims regarding the abilities of law enforcement officers, I would express disappointed surprise at your inability to recognize the elements of that offense. Since I've studied law enforcement for more than a quarter-century, your performance is precisely what I expected.
Why aren't you incandescent with rage over crimes committed by police, against police -- and the public at large -- when they steal from funds supposedly dedicated to providing for wounded officers, and the families of officers who have died on-duty? I am mortally disgusted by such behavior, and that reaction ripens into rage when I see how "blue privilege" continues to protect such offenders, who are routinely given lenient sentences and sometimes allowed to keep their subsidized pensions. It's odd that this is apparent to a purported miscreant like myself, while being ignored by an upstanding paragon of civic righteousness such as yourself.
You are doubtless aware....
No, strike that; going on the evidence [above] I would be unwise to entertain a generous estimate of your awareness.
A long line of judicial precedents documents that police officers have no enforceable duty to protect any individual citizen from criminal violence. This is even true when one is literally being hacked to death just a few feet away while apprehending an armed psychopath who had eluded the police. Take a second and Google "Joe Lozito" for the details of that case. Lozito subdued a knife-wielding serial killer while a member of your bold fraternity of badge-wearing badasses cowered behind a subway door just a few feet away. While Lozito was recuperating in the hospital, the cowardly officer was being feted as a "hero" -- and the city dismissed Lozito's legal claim by invoking the well-settled doctrine that the police have no particularized duty to protect the public.
Slogans about the selfless service of law enforcement don't find traction among people who have studied the issue to any depth. The ideas aren't really the sticking point, because while your solution is woefully incomplete in my opinion, they aren't in opposition of abolitionist movements (other than your opposition to addressing poverty with a social safety net). The problem is step 3 has to come before the other two and the two party-fptp system (and the corruption entrenched within) makes that a practical impossibility. As well as you just ignoring the role poverty plays in policing. They were slave catchers in the South but started as security forces for wealthy traders and union busters in the North. The mistake you're making imo is not seeing the role of police beyond "crime", to their role as protectors of capital. It's the same misfit thinking that rationalizes maiming, beating, and potentially killing people in order to protect inanimate objects like glass windows. I don't understand the distinction you are drawing between "crime" and breaking windows. Maybe my point would be clearer articulated this way: Between slave, slave catcher, and slave owner who would you say was engaging in "crime" in the "escape, capture, enslave" dynamic?
Now your point is even more estranged from the question of police in 2020.
|
I'm guessing the original point has something to do with the scenario of [person breaks into home through window, gets shot and killed in response], and what is really considered to be the crime there. How the police choose to enforce those scenarios, and linking that to how many police forces really began as slave catching units a long time ago. It creates a direct link to the problem we're seeing with police now, since a large number of police forces are riddled with white supremacists and white supremacy, and were made so by design, some even from the very beginning.
But I will agree that with the way he worded it it's not super obvious.
|
On July 13 2020 04:10 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm guessing the original point has something to do with the scenario of [person breaks into home through window, gets shot and killed in response], and what is really considered to be the crime there. How the police choose to enforce those scenarios, and linking that to how many police forces really began as slave catching units a long time ago. It creates a direct link to the problem we're seeing with police now, since a large number of police forces are riddled with white supremacists and white supremacy, and were made so by design, some even from the very beginning.
But I will agree that with the way he worded it it's not super obvious.
The whole point of Igne:GH conversations is that neither one is willing to say what they mean. They allude to their points, and never actually engage with each other. Its just condescension and multi-quotes until one of them gets tired.
|
So we’re less than three weeks away from the end of the boosted unemployment stimulus check. The end of the pandemic in the US is clearly much further out than that. I haven’t seen any additional stimulus even on the agenda - has anyone else?
|
another round of payments with a lower annual income phaseout is the word, along with some kind of extended student loan benefit. Unemployment is now a political hot potato and that may not be extended.
|
If they want a riot, not extending UI is the perfect way to get one. I'm back to work, but it ain't enough to pay all the bills. And if people think the people going back to work is going to fix anything, they're dead wrong. People still aren't going out to crowded places like before and a lot of stores/restaurants/bars are going to close. As soon as there is a spike in Chicago, I'm expecting things to shut down again.
|
On July 13 2020 08:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If they want a riot, not extending UI is the perfect way to get one. I'm back to work, but it ain't enough to pay all the bills. And if people think the people going back to work is going to fix anything, they're dead wrong. People still aren't going out to crowded places like before and a lot of stores/restaurants/bars are going to close. As soon as there is a spike in Chicago, I'm expecting things to shut down again.
It's an absolute must, no doubt.
|
On July 13 2020 04:10 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm guessing the original point has something to do with the scenario of [person breaks into home through window, gets shot and killed in response], and what is really considered to be the crime there. How the police choose to enforce those scenarios, and linking that to how many police forces really began as slave catching units a long time ago. It creates a direct link to the problem we're seeing with police now, since a large number of police forces are riddled with white supremacists and white supremacy, and were made so by design, some even from the very beginning.
But I will agree that with the way he worded it it's not super obvious.
The idea is that we need to examine not just the police, but the nature of "crime", and the influence of capital on the determination of what crime is. Additionally how capital changes outcomes regarding the accountability for the commission of crimes.
Wegandi called for cutting 95% of the functions associated with police today. I think it's important to examine what would be left and whether protectors of capital (not people, as they never were, as Wegandi pointed out) will still be a role of theirs.
It's why I used the least ambiguous illustration I could think of that also tied into my points about where we are in the conversation as a country and the origins/long standing purpose of police forces in the US.
On July 13 2020 08:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2020 08:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If they want a riot, not extending UI is the perfect way to get one. I'm back to work, but it ain't enough to pay all the bills. And if people think the people going back to work is going to fix anything, they're dead wrong. People still aren't going out to crowded places like before and a lot of stores/restaurants/bars are going to close. As soon as there is a spike in Chicago, I'm expecting things to shut down again. It's an absolute must, no doubt.
Trump is going to make states grovel for it.
|
On July 13 2020 08:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2020 08:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If they want a riot, not extending UI is the perfect way to get one. I'm back to work, but it ain't enough to pay all the bills. And if people think the people going back to work is going to fix anything, they're dead wrong. People still aren't going out to crowded places like before and a lot of stores/restaurants/bars are going to close. As soon as there is a spike in Chicago, I'm expecting things to shut down again. It's an absolute must, no doubt.
Which makes it weird to me that I have heard little more than the very “maybe we do it somewhat different” rumors you mentioned. That UI boost is likely the only thing preventing a larger scale collapse at this point.
GH’s words a few months back - on how this stimulus severs the long-standing association of working with having the money necessary to stay alive - comes to mind. I suspect some very strong resistance to any further unemployment type stimulus in the ranks of the government. But maybe we could further bail out Wall Street to save the unemployed?
|
On July 13 2020 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2020 04:10 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm guessing the original point has something to do with the scenario of [person breaks into home through window, gets shot and killed in response], and what is really considered to be the crime there. How the police choose to enforce those scenarios, and linking that to how many police forces really began as slave catching units a long time ago. It creates a direct link to the problem we're seeing with police now, since a large number of police forces are riddled with white supremacists and white supremacy, and were made so by design, some even from the very beginning.
But I will agree that with the way he worded it it's not super obvious. The idea is that we need to examine not just the police, but the nature of "crime", and the influence of capital on the determination of what crime is. Additionally how capital changes outcomes regarding the accountability for the commission of crimes. Wegandi called for cutting 95% of the functions associated with police today. I think it's important to examine what would be left and whether protectors of capital (not people, as they never were, as Wegandi pointed out) will still be a role of theirs. It's why I used the least ambiguous illustration I could think of that also tied into my points about where we are in the conversation as a country and the origins/long standing purpose of police forces in the US. Show nested quote +On July 13 2020 08:34 farvacola wrote:On July 13 2020 08:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If they want a riot, not extending UI is the perfect way to get one. I'm back to work, but it ain't enough to pay all the bills. And if people think the people going back to work is going to fix anything, they're dead wrong. People still aren't going out to crowded places like before and a lot of stores/restaurants/bars are going to close. As soon as there is a spike in Chicago, I'm expecting things to shut down again. It's an absolute must, no doubt. Trump is going to make states grovel for it.
The police are not protectors of capital, as evident by what happened last month. They protect themselves and the Government. If you want to protect your home, your place of business, your factories and manufacturing in times of crisis / riot its up to you and private security, not Government agents.
I'm also not sure why you bring up the origin of policing like policing in 2020 is modeled on anything remotely similar to the slave-catching enterprises. Just like you wouldn't say that Lincoln's GOP is anything like today's GOP. Things change (and I'm sure you'd say the same about say...gun control which arose out of racists preventing blacks from arming themselves...or would you say gun control advocates and associated laws are racist today?).
PS: I do find it illuminating that GH believes that ones home is considered capital. Careful when the Revolution comes a calling.
|
On July 13 2020 07:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2020 04:10 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm guessing the original point has something to do with the scenario of [person breaks into home through window, gets shot and killed in response], and what is really considered to be the crime there. How the police choose to enforce those scenarios, and linking that to how many police forces really began as slave catching units a long time ago. It creates a direct link to the problem we're seeing with police now, since a large number of police forces are riddled with white supremacists and white supremacy, and were made so by design, some even from the very beginning.
But I will agree that with the way he worded it it's not super obvious. The whole point of Igne:GH conversations is that neither one is willing to say what they mean. They allude to their points, and never actually engage with each other. Its just condescension and multi-quotes until one of them gets tired.
Nah. Bad opinion.
|
I'm also not sure why you bring up the origin of policing like policing in 2020 is modeled on anything remotely similar to the slave-catching enterprises.
There are many similarities in the dynamics between slave, slave-catcher, slave-owner and forced prison labor, police, and the prison industry.
That's part of why I suggested we look at what constitutes 'crime' in the slave dynamic. You acknowledge the drug war is absurd, you know people were incarcerated en masse (disproportionately BIPoC), forced to labor for little or no compensation, and face deplorable working and living conditions.
You see that the police act as both an enforcement and acquisition arm of this industry of forced laborers under unreasonable legal structures. Also that this forced/coerced labor is often used to subsidize government affairs. You see the complete lack of accountability for these actors and the simultaneous justification for their actions under the auspicious of legality and justice within this framework.
It was probably a rhetorical curiosity, but I thought it worth explaining a bit more.
|
On July 13 2020 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +I'm also not sure why you bring up the origin of policing like policing in 2020 is modeled on anything remotely similar to the slave-catching enterprises. There are many similarities in the dynamics between slave, slave-catcher, slave-owner and forced prison labor, police, and the prison industry. That's part of why I suggested we look at what constitutes 'crime' in the slave dynamic. You acknowledge the drug war is absurd, you know people were incarcerated en masse (disproportionately BIPoC), forced to labor for little or no compensation, and face deplorable working and living conditions. You see that the police act as both an enforcement and acquisition arm of this industry of forced laborers under unreasonable legal structures. Also that this forced/coerced labor is often used to subsidize government affairs. You see the complete lack of accountability for these actors and the simultaneous justification for their actions under the auspicious of legality and justice within this framework. It was probably a rhetorical curiosity, but I thought it worth explaining a bit more.
See, while those things are true, you believe that's the impetus for the apparatus, whereas I do not. We have drug laws not to build a slave labor force, but because of puritanical ideas and false notions of external "harm". Police are not instituted to corral folks for forced labor encampments. They're primarily there as Government enforcement arms to protect the State and they provide enough relevant services (legitimate tasks of security, crime solving, etc. even if they're bad at it) to not be so transparent to the mass of people. That's why I say police of today are nothing like the slave-catchers of yore. They're fundamentally different on most axis.
Even snopes says...not so fast on your assertions. Relevant quote cited:
It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-origins-of-policing-in-the-united-states/
Not exactly the hubs of slave-catchers. Regardless, I am interested if you believe that gun control advocates and laws are racist today? (Using the same argument for why police today are the same as police in yesteryear according to your chain of logic)
|
On July 13 2020 14:22 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2020 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote:I'm also not sure why you bring up the origin of policing like policing in 2020 is modeled on anything remotely similar to the slave-catching enterprises. There are many similarities in the dynamics between slave, slave-catcher, slave-owner and forced prison labor, police, and the prison industry. That's part of why I suggested we look at what constitutes 'crime' in the slave dynamic. You acknowledge the drug war is absurd, you know people were incarcerated en masse (disproportionately BIPoC), forced to labor for little or no compensation, and face deplorable working and living conditions. You see that the police act as both an enforcement and acquisition arm of this industry of forced laborers under unreasonable legal structures. Also that this forced/coerced labor is often used to subsidize government affairs. You see the complete lack of accountability for these actors and the simultaneous justification for their actions under the auspicious of legality and justice within this framework. It was probably a rhetorical curiosity, but I thought it worth explaining a bit more. See, while those things are true, you believe that's the impetus for the apparatus, whereas I do not. We have drug laws not to build a slave labor force, but because of puritanical ideas and false notions of external "harm". Police are not instituted to corral folks for forced labor encampments. They're primarily there as Government enforcement arms to protect the State and they provide enough relevant services (legitimate tasks of security, crime solving, etc. even if they're bad at it) to not be so transparent to the mass of people. That's why I say police of today are nothing like the slave-catchers of yore. They're fundamentally different on most axis. Even snopes says...not so fast on your assertions. Relevant quote cited: Show nested quote +It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-origins-of-policing-in-the-united-states/Not exactly the hubs of slave-catchers. Regardless, I am interested if you believe that gun control advocates and laws are racist today? (Using the same argument for why police today are the same as police in yesteryear according to your chain of logic)
There's more to "the impetus for the apparatus" than just that, but the specifics are related to the relevant material conditions. Even the snopes piece goes on to note this and I have referenced the nature of policing in the north (since capital was less explicitly linked to chattel slavery) repeatedly.
Centralized and bureaucratic police departments, focusing on the alleged crime-producing qualities of the “dangerous classes” began to emphasize preventative crime control....
Patrols in the northern U.S. also became useful for breaking up labor strikes before they became too destructive (Marxist political historian Eric Hobsbawm referred to the mechanisms of violence and destruction of property to agitate for better working conditions as “collective bargaining by riot”) and these services became increasingly utilized as the country became more populated and conditions simultaneously grew more difficult for the United States’ restive economic underclasses.
I wouldn't say the police of today are the same as 150+ years ago, but I did point several similarities in the dynamics at play I think relevant to examining how we determine what constitutes "crime" and "justice" as well as the role of police in those concepts.
Before entertaining the rest, I have to ask, who do you think the government/state represents?
|
On July 13 2020 14:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2020 14:22 Wegandi wrote:On July 13 2020 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote:I'm also not sure why you bring up the origin of policing like policing in 2020 is modeled on anything remotely similar to the slave-catching enterprises. There are many similarities in the dynamics between slave, slave-catcher, slave-owner and forced prison labor, police, and the prison industry. That's part of why I suggested we look at what constitutes 'crime' in the slave dynamic. You acknowledge the drug war is absurd, you know people were incarcerated en masse (disproportionately BIPoC), forced to labor for little or no compensation, and face deplorable working and living conditions. You see that the police act as both an enforcement and acquisition arm of this industry of forced laborers under unreasonable legal structures. Also that this forced/coerced labor is often used to subsidize government affairs. You see the complete lack of accountability for these actors and the simultaneous justification for their actions under the auspicious of legality and justice within this framework. It was probably a rhetorical curiosity, but I thought it worth explaining a bit more. See, while those things are true, you believe that's the impetus for the apparatus, whereas I do not. We have drug laws not to build a slave labor force, but because of puritanical ideas and false notions of external "harm". Police are not instituted to corral folks for forced labor encampments. They're primarily there as Government enforcement arms to protect the State and they provide enough relevant services (legitimate tasks of security, crime solving, etc. even if they're bad at it) to not be so transparent to the mass of people. That's why I say police of today are nothing like the slave-catchers of yore. They're fundamentally different on most axis. Even snopes says...not so fast on your assertions. Relevant quote cited: It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-origins-of-policing-in-the-united-states/Not exactly the hubs of slave-catchers. Regardless, I am interested if you believe that gun control advocates and laws are racist today? (Using the same argument for why police today are the same as police in yesteryear according to your chain of logic) There's more to "the impetus for the apparatus" than just that, but the specifics are related to the relevant material conditions. Even the snopes piece goes on to note this and I have referenced the nature of policing in the north (since capital was less explicitly linked to chattel slavery) repeatedly. Show nested quote +
Centralized and bureaucratic police departments, focusing on the alleged crime-producing qualities of the “dangerous classes” began to emphasize preventative crime control....
Patrols in the northern U.S. also became useful for breaking up labor strikes before they became too destructive (Marxist political historian Eric Hobsbawm referred to the mechanisms of violence and destruction of property to agitate for better working conditions as “collective bargaining by riot”) and these services became increasingly utilized as the country became more populated and conditions simultaneously grew more difficult for the United States’ restive economic underclasses.
I wouldn't say the police of today are the same as 150+ years ago, but I did point several similarities in the dynamics at play I think relevant to examining how we determine what constitutes "crime" and "justice" as well as the role of police in those concepts. Before entertaining the rest, I have to ask, who do you think the government/state represents?
Itself and tax-leeches of all varieties, but you haven't answered my question yet. As for crime there's no point in talking about this as we're about as far apart as one can be (a market anarchist who holds steadfast Lockean ideals and a Marxist lol).
By the way, it's my political lineage that first introduced class theory (rightful I might add, not the Marxist interpretation). Comte, Dunoyer, Constant into Thierry and Blanqui. Hence, this is my scaffolding for who the State is and serves.
https://mises.org/library/classical-liberal-roots-marxist-doctrine-classes
https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/lm-class
"Producers of the world, unite!"
|
On July 13 2020 14:56 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2020 14:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2020 14:22 Wegandi wrote:On July 13 2020 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote:I'm also not sure why you bring up the origin of policing like policing in 2020 is modeled on anything remotely similar to the slave-catching enterprises. There are many similarities in the dynamics between slave, slave-catcher, slave-owner and forced prison labor, police, and the prison industry. That's part of why I suggested we look at what constitutes 'crime' in the slave dynamic. You acknowledge the drug war is absurd, you know people were incarcerated en masse (disproportionately BIPoC), forced to labor for little or no compensation, and face deplorable working and living conditions. You see that the police act as both an enforcement and acquisition arm of this industry of forced laborers under unreasonable legal structures. Also that this forced/coerced labor is often used to subsidize government affairs. You see the complete lack of accountability for these actors and the simultaneous justification for their actions under the auspicious of legality and justice within this framework. It was probably a rhetorical curiosity, but I thought it worth explaining a bit more. See, while those things are true, you believe that's the impetus for the apparatus, whereas I do not. We have drug laws not to build a slave labor force, but because of puritanical ideas and false notions of external "harm". Police are not instituted to corral folks for forced labor encampments. They're primarily there as Government enforcement arms to protect the State and they provide enough relevant services (legitimate tasks of security, crime solving, etc. even if they're bad at it) to not be so transparent to the mass of people. That's why I say police of today are nothing like the slave-catchers of yore. They're fundamentally different on most axis. Even snopes says...not so fast on your assertions. Relevant quote cited: It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-origins-of-policing-in-the-united-states/Not exactly the hubs of slave-catchers. Regardless, I am interested if you believe that gun control advocates and laws are racist today? (Using the same argument for why police today are the same as police in yesteryear according to your chain of logic) There's more to "the impetus for the apparatus" than just that, but the specifics are related to the relevant material conditions. Even the snopes piece goes on to note this and I have referenced the nature of policing in the north (since capital was less explicitly linked to chattel slavery) repeatedly.
Centralized and bureaucratic police departments, focusing on the alleged crime-producing qualities of the “dangerous classes” began to emphasize preventative crime control....
Patrols in the northern U.S. also became useful for breaking up labor strikes before they became too destructive (Marxist political historian Eric Hobsbawm referred to the mechanisms of violence and destruction of property to agitate for better working conditions as “collective bargaining by riot”) and these services became increasingly utilized as the country became more populated and conditions simultaneously grew more difficult for the United States’ restive economic underclasses.
I wouldn't say the police of today are the same as 150+ years ago, but I did point several similarities in the dynamics at play I think relevant to examining how we determine what constitutes "crime" and "justice" as well as the role of police in those concepts. Before entertaining the rest, I have to ask, who do you think the government/state represents? Itself and tax-leeches of all varieties, but you haven't answered my question yet. As for crime there's no point in talking about this as we're about as far apart as one can be (a market anarchist who holds steadfast Lockean ideals and a Marxist lol).
I'm curious who these "tax-leechers" are. There also seems to be a theme of "motivated and acting out of self(ish) interests" through the entities you're critical of. Presumably this is also present among/between market anarchists?
I'll look into these to get a better understanding of your worldview.
As to your question, definitely in the 60's, again in the 80's, and yeah, in the 90's/early 2000's. Gun control advocates are probably progressively less racist/racially motivated in their advocacy each generation. Especially since the most recent efforts are primarily motivated by school shootings and other mass shootings perpetrated by white people.
On the other hand, stop and frisk was especially racist and often justified by arguing it prevented gun crime. Which also speaks to another important aspect about the distance we often find between laws as written and laws as they are enforced (and the related classification of acts as crimes or justified).
EDIT: Having read a bit I think I'm understanding some of the key differences in our worldviews specifically regarding class. I'm curious, are there some popular examples of what I might lump together as capitalists and you would delineate into the honorable entrepreneur and the exploitative plunderer/idle rich?
For instance; Bezos, Gates, Musk, entrepreneurs or plunderers?
|
On July 13 2020 15:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2020 14:56 Wegandi wrote:On July 13 2020 14:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2020 14:22 Wegandi wrote:On July 13 2020 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote:I'm also not sure why you bring up the origin of policing like policing in 2020 is modeled on anything remotely similar to the slave-catching enterprises. There are many similarities in the dynamics between slave, slave-catcher, slave-owner and forced prison labor, police, and the prison industry. That's part of why I suggested we look at what constitutes 'crime' in the slave dynamic. You acknowledge the drug war is absurd, you know people were incarcerated en masse (disproportionately BIPoC), forced to labor for little or no compensation, and face deplorable working and living conditions. You see that the police act as both an enforcement and acquisition arm of this industry of forced laborers under unreasonable legal structures. Also that this forced/coerced labor is often used to subsidize government affairs. You see the complete lack of accountability for these actors and the simultaneous justification for their actions under the auspicious of legality and justice within this framework. It was probably a rhetorical curiosity, but I thought it worth explaining a bit more. See, while those things are true, you believe that's the impetus for the apparatus, whereas I do not. We have drug laws not to build a slave labor force, but because of puritanical ideas and false notions of external "harm". Police are not instituted to corral folks for forced labor encampments. They're primarily there as Government enforcement arms to protect the State and they provide enough relevant services (legitimate tasks of security, crime solving, etc. even if they're bad at it) to not be so transparent to the mass of people. That's why I say police of today are nothing like the slave-catchers of yore. They're fundamentally different on most axis. Even snopes says...not so fast on your assertions. Relevant quote cited: It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-origins-of-policing-in-the-united-states/Not exactly the hubs of slave-catchers. Regardless, I am interested if you believe that gun control advocates and laws are racist today? (Using the same argument for why police today are the same as police in yesteryear according to your chain of logic) There's more to "the impetus for the apparatus" than just that, but the specifics are related to the relevant material conditions. Even the snopes piece goes on to note this and I have referenced the nature of policing in the north (since capital was less explicitly linked to chattel slavery) repeatedly.
Centralized and bureaucratic police departments, focusing on the alleged crime-producing qualities of the “dangerous classes” began to emphasize preventative crime control....
Patrols in the northern U.S. also became useful for breaking up labor strikes before they became too destructive (Marxist political historian Eric Hobsbawm referred to the mechanisms of violence and destruction of property to agitate for better working conditions as “collective bargaining by riot”) and these services became increasingly utilized as the country became more populated and conditions simultaneously grew more difficult for the United States’ restive economic underclasses.
I wouldn't say the police of today are the same as 150+ years ago, but I did point several similarities in the dynamics at play I think relevant to examining how we determine what constitutes "crime" and "justice" as well as the role of police in those concepts. Before entertaining the rest, I have to ask, who do you think the government/state represents? Itself and tax-leeches of all varieties, but you haven't answered my question yet. As for crime there's no point in talking about this as we're about as far apart as one can be (a market anarchist who holds steadfast Lockean ideals and a Marxist lol). I'm curious who these "tax-leechers" are. There also seems to be a theme of "motivated and acting out of self(ish) interests" through the entities you're critical of. Presumably this is also present among/between market anarchists? I'll look into these to get a better understanding of your worldview. As to your question, definitely in the 60's, again in the 80's, and yeah, in the 90's/early 2000's. Gun control advocates are probably progressively less racist/racially motivated in their advocacy each generation. Especially since the most recent efforts are primarily motivated by school shootings and other mass shootings perpetrated by white people. On the other hand, stop and frisk was especially racist and often justified by arguing it prevented gun crime. Which also speaks to another important aspect about the distance we often find between laws as written and laws as they are enforced (and the related classification of acts as crimes or justified). EDIT: Having read a bit I think I'm understanding some of the key differences in our worldviews specifically regarding class. I'm curious, are there some popular examples of what I might lump together as capitalists and you would delineate into the honorable entrepreneur and the exploitative plunderer/idle rich? For instance; Bezos, Gates, Musk, entrepreneurs or plunderers?
Yes, stop and frisk was particularly egregrious violation of our liberty throwing on its head presumed innocence or any semblance of "reasonableness" with regards to 4th Amendment search and seizure. That lovely progressive NYC, gotta love them. Moving on....
I think all 3 of those to some extent are plunderers (I consider IP an infringement on property rights; see the work of Stephen Kinsella and Wendy McElroy), but Musk is the worst of the 3 with vast array of State-subsidies. They all though, provide a wealth of positive services. So it's not just a binary yes/no. To the extent possible it would be great to abolish their state-subsidies and regulatory advantages. You can read about the works of Gabriel Kolko on the Progressive Era and the build up of the bureaucratic state at the behest of Industrial tycoons who wished to destroy their competition through the regulatory state (of which they did with their patsies in the progressive movement). That is to say, I believe that in a fully market society large entities like Amazon, Microsoft, etc. would be rarer given the ease of competition and lack of a monopolistic system of societal coercion to control to destroy their competition. It's why I think in the long-run market societies are incompatible with the state because a large percentage of society whether it is the common people or the industrialists will leech themselves off the backs of the productive destroying the liberal society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_intellectual_property#:~:text=and proposed legislation".-,Right-libertarian views,provided through private sector institutions.
PS: I think that the most egregious sector of parasitism is the military industrial complex. I've long advocated for the abolition of our standing army and returning to our state and community level defensive traditions (in this vein destroying all forms of gun control; as they say, the ATF should be a convenience store, not an ABC Government agency). The best entrepreneurs are in the grey-markets. That's why I hate the saying legalize and tax. Fuck no. Just legalize it.
|
On July 13 2020 16:10 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2020 15:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2020 14:56 Wegandi wrote:On July 13 2020 14:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2020 14:22 Wegandi wrote:On July 13 2020 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote:I'm also not sure why you bring up the origin of policing like policing in 2020 is modeled on anything remotely similar to the slave-catching enterprises. There are many similarities in the dynamics between slave, slave-catcher, slave-owner and forced prison labor, police, and the prison industry. That's part of why I suggested we look at what constitutes 'crime' in the slave dynamic. You acknowledge the drug war is absurd, you know people were incarcerated en masse (disproportionately BIPoC), forced to labor for little or no compensation, and face deplorable working and living conditions. You see that the police act as both an enforcement and acquisition arm of this industry of forced laborers under unreasonable legal structures. Also that this forced/coerced labor is often used to subsidize government affairs. You see the complete lack of accountability for these actors and the simultaneous justification for their actions under the auspicious of legality and justice within this framework. It was probably a rhetorical curiosity, but I thought it worth explaining a bit more. See, while those things are true, you believe that's the impetus for the apparatus, whereas I do not. We have drug laws not to build a slave labor force, but because of puritanical ideas and false notions of external "harm". Police are not instituted to corral folks for forced labor encampments. They're primarily there as Government enforcement arms to protect the State and they provide enough relevant services (legitimate tasks of security, crime solving, etc. even if they're bad at it) to not be so transparent to the mass of people. That's why I say police of today are nothing like the slave-catchers of yore. They're fundamentally different on most axis. Even snopes says...not so fast on your assertions. Relevant quote cited: It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-origins-of-policing-in-the-united-states/Not exactly the hubs of slave-catchers. Regardless, I am interested if you believe that gun control advocates and laws are racist today? (Using the same argument for why police today are the same as police in yesteryear according to your chain of logic) There's more to "the impetus for the apparatus" than just that, but the specifics are related to the relevant material conditions. Even the snopes piece goes on to note this and I have referenced the nature of policing in the north (since capital was less explicitly linked to chattel slavery) repeatedly.
Centralized and bureaucratic police departments, focusing on the alleged crime-producing qualities of the “dangerous classes” began to emphasize preventative crime control....
Patrols in the northern U.S. also became useful for breaking up labor strikes before they became too destructive (Marxist political historian Eric Hobsbawm referred to the mechanisms of violence and destruction of property to agitate for better working conditions as “collective bargaining by riot”) and these services became increasingly utilized as the country became more populated and conditions simultaneously grew more difficult for the United States’ restive economic underclasses.
I wouldn't say the police of today are the same as 150+ years ago, but I did point several similarities in the dynamics at play I think relevant to examining how we determine what constitutes "crime" and "justice" as well as the role of police in those concepts. Before entertaining the rest, I have to ask, who do you think the government/state represents? Itself and tax-leeches of all varieties, but you haven't answered my question yet. As for crime there's no point in talking about this as we're about as far apart as one can be (a market anarchist who holds steadfast Lockean ideals and a Marxist lol). I'm curious who these "tax-leechers" are. There also seems to be a theme of "motivated and acting out of self(ish) interests" through the entities you're critical of. Presumably this is also present among/between market anarchists? I'll look into these to get a better understanding of your worldview. As to your question, definitely in the 60's, again in the 80's, and yeah, in the 90's/early 2000's. Gun control advocates are probably progressively less racist/racially motivated in their advocacy each generation. Especially since the most recent efforts are primarily motivated by school shootings and other mass shootings perpetrated by white people. On the other hand, stop and frisk was especially racist and often justified by arguing it prevented gun crime. Which also speaks to another important aspect about the distance we often find between laws as written and laws as they are enforced (and the related classification of acts as crimes or justified). EDIT: Having read a bit I think I'm understanding some of the key differences in our worldviews specifically regarding class. I'm curious, are there some popular examples of what I might lump together as capitalists and you would delineate into the honorable entrepreneur and the exploitative plunderer/idle rich? For instance; Bezos, Gates, Musk, entrepreneurs or plunderers? Yes, stop and frisk was particularly egregrious violation of our liberty throwing on its head presumed innocence or any semblance of "reasonableness" with regards to 4th Amendment search and seizure. That lovely progressive NYC, gotta love them. Moving on.... I think all 3 of those to some extent are plunderers (I consider IP an infringement on property rights; see the work of Stephen Kinsella and Wendy McElroy), but Musk is the worst of the 3 with vast array of State-subsidies. They all though, provide a wealth of positive services. So it's not just a binary yes/no. To the extent possible it would be great to abolish their state-subsidies and regulatory advantages. You can read about the works of Gabriel Kolko on the Progressive Era and the build up of the bureaucratic state at the behest of Industrial tycoons who wished to destroy their competition through the regulatory state (of which they did with their patsies in the progressive movement). That is to say, I believe that in a fully market society large entities like Amazon, Microsoft, etc. would be rarer given the ease of competition and lack of a system of societal coercion to control to destroy their competition. It's why I think in the long-run market societies are incompatible with the state because a large percentage of society whether it is the common people or the industrialists will leech themselves off the backs of the productive destroying the liberal society.
Without a State, what provides accountability for those that violate the nature of the organizing principles of this market society?
Doesn't this make a market society (as you've described) both dependent on and incompatible with a State?
PS: I think that the most egregious sector of parasitism is the military industrial complex. I've long advocated for the abolition of our standing army and returning to our state and community level defensive traditions (in this vein destroying all forms of gun control; as they say, the ATF should be a convenience store, not an ABC Government agency). The best entrepreneurs are in the grey-markets. That's why I hate the saying legalize and tax. Fuck no. Just legalize it.
I think it's going to be important to investigate the relationship between folks like Bezos, Gates, and Musk and the government. We both identify it as parasitic, and seem to see the state as an outgrowth of capitalist class interest in securing their stolen surplus value and the police as the enforcers domestically and military internationally of this exploitative and plunderous relationship with a culturally implied and legally supported legitimacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
