Reforming a police force still implies the existence of a militarized group of people whose job is to uphold the power of the state at the expense of the people. Law enforcement's job is to enforce laws, right? Laws are the will of the state, and enforcement is making people obey those laws with the threat or act of violence. That is what a police force is.

That's why people, why I, don't think reforming police is the answer, because by definition police are the violent arm of the state.

Abolishing the state's monopoly on "lawful" violence is, in my view, the only way to reduce institutional abuse of power against marginalized groups. Having people whose job it is to de-escalate heated situations, deal with unsafe conditions, and direct people away from harm is a necessary job, but that doesn't require violence. That doesn't require "Police".

I do think there are people who join the police with the intent of doing good, helping people, and keeping people from harm. I just think that should be a separate and distinct job from enforcing the law.

PS I love your username. X)

[–] A_Toasty_Strudel@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Having people whose job it is to de-escalate heated situations, deal with unsafe conditions, and direct people away from harm is a necessary job, but that doesn't require violence.

I think I see where you're coming from with this, but abolishing the states ability to enforce the laws of the land will throw things into anarchy with frontier justice being the only option. There has to be people to enforce laws when people decide they're above them.

Can the scope of work police are required to handle be split between other professionals trained to handle different types of situations? Absolutely. But getting rid of Police entirely simply cannot be the answer in a country with laws.

[–] Kattiydid 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, see, I think a world in anarchy would be ideal. Not in the hyperbolic common use sense where anarchy means the purge and chaos and zero government that most media portray it to be, but the actual definition of anarchy, a world without hierarchy. A world where no person, group, or government has the right to use violence or the threat thereof to coerce anyone into doing anything against their will.

There are so very many ways these ideals could be debated and edge cases brought up. So many people, with much more detailed and complete knowledge than I, have written many books on the subject. I don't have the answers to it all. Mostly I don't think people require a State, which is to say a sovereign government that has the authority to enforce a system of rules over the people living inside it's jurisdiction, to live in peaceful coexistence.

Police are definitely necessary if the goal is to uphold the laws of the state. I just don't think we need a state and, by extension, I don't think we need the police that enforce it's laws.

I'm aware I'm an idealist, I just can't bring myself to aim for a worse world because what I want seems too hard to get. A perfect world can't exist but I'll be damned if I don't try anyway.

Anywho, I'll relinquish the soap box now, thanks for listening and being open to hearing my point of view.

[–] A_Toasty_Strudel@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Ideally everyone living together in perfect non-state regulated harmony would be very easy to achieve for a lot of people. My concern are the people who are then going to realize they have nothing stopping them from killing you in your sleep and walking out with everything you own. I'm not a sketchy type human, but I've definitely known a couple that would, in a world without police or laws, take a savagely terrible advantage of their fellow man.