Nostr Web Client

That is also flawed in several parts:

1. If one does not know that which one is swearing yip uphold, then one is an idiot. A very useful idiot.

2. Rarely, if ever, do police actively uphold parts of oaths to protect, life, liberty, or property.

3. My morality includes the maximum "make no oaths." Swearing what is essentially fealty to an evil, always increasingly despotic system is ignorant at best, and life-changingly destructive at worst.

4. Police are essentially a standing army. They ignore proscriptions (I'm in the US, so I am biased in my view on these things) to have no standing armies because standing armies lead to taxation and taxation leads to despotism.

My pretext is that ALL HUMAN GOVERMENT IS EVIL. Humans are meant to rule over their immediate families and not others. Scaling even just a little too large is something that most people are incapable of doing well, and that, IMO, is by design.

So, I entirely reject the police as both a concept and as a supposed necessity since the very foundation of their existence demands coercions of inestimable harm for their very existence.

Can otherwise good people take part in that system ignorantly? Yes. But that is no excuse and does not change the fact they are choosing to perpetuate their livelyhoods literally by the coercion of others.

You may also tell that from my perspective I value externalizing "safety" to others exceedingly little since in practice every adult human is only responsible for themselves, with some rare exceptions.

So yes, I think you are just flat wrong, no matter how flowery a sentiment you wish to frame "the police."

Daniel Wigton 6mo ago

I am in the U.S. as well. I just can't buy "All government is evil." Is much of ours evil? Youbetcha, but evil is a privation of good. For them to abuse authority implies that there is a proper use of authority. If there were no proper use it would not exist.

You think police protecting people's life, liberty, and property is rare, but I think that is colored by you world view. I have a brother who serves in rural Michigan. He is a far better man than I am, one of those people who will go a day out of their way to help anyone. He views his job as helping people get through their worst days. Maybe you just aren't aware of the sheer amount of trouble people get themselves into, maybe you don't care. Well my brother does.

I find the whole anarchist and even libertarian worldview to be just.. ignorant of reality. It is something that can exist only in a place that has achieved some semblance of stability. It is a luxury belief. No different from communism. Both require everyone to just magically behave the way you want them to. If your system can't tolerate people who don't like your system, then it is poorly conceived.

I suppose the nice thing about anarchy is that it cannot commit atrocities because it cannot exist. Communism's problem with dissenters is that they must be eliminated to maintain the lie. Anarchy's problem with dissenters is that they immediately take over.

It's a nice problem since the anarchist can forever complain about the society in which he lives without ever having to admit it literally cannot work.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 6mo ago

i don't think there is any benefit from archons in our society.

people who think they have the right to dictate law to people are psychopaths.

we can have a civil society without archons, it just requires an open market in judges. this is how they did it before David if you read the bible up to Samuel.

bad judges get shunned because they favor plaintiffs with no right to complain about the justice that actually happened.

there is zero need for us to define laws that are implemented by governments. if the law is not common, it's not law. universality is a central criteria by which all law can be judged. if law favors one party over another, it is not law, it is edict and fiat.