• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

6 Ideas for a Cop-Free World

Status
Not open for further replies.
Right, jackissocool? There is actually a whole hell of a lot of evidence about the extraordinarily high crime (particularly murder) rate amongst pre-state societies. While I'm not an anthropologist, the stuff I've looked at has the murder rate pre civilization to be much, [/i]much[/i] higher. Like around 15-25% among males pre state compared to around 0.5% now.
 

Ray Wonder

Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
The fuck? There is no good reason to lock someone in prison for doing drugs. I guess you must really hate this family member in question.

I must hate this family member because jail most likely saved their lives? Yeah. You're missing my point. My family tried everything to help this family member out. This family member had none of it. This family member was killing them self quickly with heroin. This family member got locked up for 9 months. Came out clean. This family member has been doing well for the past 6-7 months. I love this person. If they weren't locked up, they would probably be dead. There IS DEFINITELY a good reason to lock someone up for drugs, even if it is 1/100 people that it actually helps. It helped in my case.

So fuck off with that I must hate my family member bullshit..
 

neorej

ERMYGERD!
No not like cops. They'll be citizens on patrol.

Sounds like a plan.

URm5KmU.gif
 

Nivash

Member
Right, jackissocool? There is actually a whole hell of a lot of evidence about the extraordinarily high crime (particularly murder) rate amongst pre-state societies. While I'm not an anthropologist, the stuff I've looked at has the murder rate pre civilization to be much, [/i]much[/i] higher. Like around 15-25% among males pre state compared to around 0.5% now.

You can even see this trend continuing through the centuries in state societies:

11217607.0002.206-00000001.jpg


The scale is logarithmic. The murder rate in Italy in 1450 was a hundred times higher than Scandinavia in the 20th century. One out of every 1000 citizens were killed yearly!
 
Don't think the anarchy model is going to work at all.

Demilitarizing the police, banning former military members from becoming police and banning policemen from going into the military would be a good start, though.

Also, a rehabilitation system that's less destructive to communities and families would work wonders.

The militarization issue has nothing to do with ex-military joining police forces.
 
Every kind of system that we can come up with, in order to make our society better place is
obviously flawed, and there are going to be "holes" in the system which are going to get abused by those individuals who want to have more than the others. The sad truth is that for us to be happy, someone else in the world always has to suffer, we are not perfect, and therefore we can't create a perfect system for a flawed society.

I want everybody to be happy as they can be.
 

wildfire

Banned
No. Human nature does not shift based on the time period, or it wouldn't be human nature. What matters is that a bunch of people in here are arguing that humans are naturally a bunch of savage animals incapable of cooperation. History has proven this to be incredibly far from the truth. And yes, an egalitarian society will be difficult to maintain in large populations with divisions of labor, but with widespread and an elimination of poverty (not at all impossible, as poverty is a social construct and has not always been), then you will have a materially aware population perfectly capable of self-regulation. Shouts of "Mob rule!' are elitist as hell, but more importantly, they ignore the fact that direct democracy would be implemented in a more educated society.
.

The time period is a correlation. The causation are the population sizes and that takes time for it become unwieldy to have communities that can't be handled by previously effective methods.
 
Lowering the crime rate by just making nothing a crime is pretty fucking stupid.

Not really. Would the word be a better place if we threw people in jail for speeding or jaywalking? Probably not. Conversely, decriminalizing some other non violent offenses, particularly some drug related ones might go a long way in de-cluttering the court system and jails.

I don't think it's stupid at all, in fact it's been the trend for the last few years.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
What exactly do you mean by ownership must be redistributed? Do you just mean ownership of land? Like everyone gets an acre of land or something?

And that's where it all kind of gets impossible. Our lives as we know of them are touched in every respect by systems that are concerned with the distribution of various resources. Specialization of labor is at the heart of every aspect of our civilization.

This kind of sweeping societal overhauls only maybe potentially becomes feasible if we reach a post scarcity point and, uhm, we're nowhere near that
 

Shig

Strap on your hooker ...
"History" is an empty bullshit statement lacking any critical thought whatsoever and you should, quite frankly, be ashamed to use it to justify your non-argument. If you actually examine history, you'll see that the vast majority of humanity's time on earth was spent in peaceful, egalitarian groups without official leadership.
As the saying goes, history is written by the winners. The most intimate historical understanding of the societal workings of smaller ancient civilizations tend to be gleamed from mostly autobiographical accounts rather than sustained, academic observation from multiple outside sources. Parchments decribing a people as benevolent and reasoned tend to be a little skewed when it's a) a self-prescribed assessment and b) only the upper crust was literate enough to make the documentation. Of course their village's ways were fantastic, of course they were an unerringly wise and just people, of course they never exiled or murdered a person that didn't deserve it. Taking most surviving historical accounts at face value is something like concluding that the Eagles were the mightiest football team based on the unearthed testimonials of some native Philadelphians. Falls apart real quick if you can introduce some proper outside sources.
 

Ikael

Member
I absolutely agree here and, at least, in the Netherlands, we are seeing a better partnership between health care and police. The problem is that success is measured in percentages (like '20% of caught burglars didn't go back to crime after we helped them with their addiction and debts')... but society only focuses on the cases that didn't work (headline: '80% of all caught burglars go back to crime, justice system fails!')

Here in Spain there are some pretty darn good programs of cooperation between mental institutions and the police. Public school have a police psychologist working with them in order to spot cases of abuse or dangerous mental health problems among kids in order to treat them before it is too late and become criminals. That being said, the nature of our judicial system makes it almost impossible to institute any kind of "pre-crime" or forced mental health policy, no matter how risky the potential perpetrators are labelled. One of my friends was commenting on some very severe, very scare cases of psycopathy that he was able to spot and diagnose while working as a psychologist and it was nearly nothing he could do in order to force any treatment :/

One thing I hope GAF takes away is that, at the strategic policy level, a lot of smart people within law-enforcement having these exact discussions, backed by the research of international universities.

The police is more than just the dude who writes you a ticket or kicks in your door.

Several friends of mine are inside the police corps or working at criminalistics, so don't worry, I do know that there are some serious scientific research done at the police departments ;) there are good, professional police corps out there, despite of Ferguson and its alikes.
 
Most of that list is pretty fucking awful.

How about just giving me the right to defend myself everywhere in the country? We'll see how many cops are needed after that.
 
Demilitarizing the police, banning former military members from becoming police and banning policemen from going into the military would be a good start, though.

Also, a rehabilitation system that's less destructive to communities and families would work wonders.

Maybe if the police were given more govt and taxpayer money/support to train better cadets, they wouldn't need to recruit ex-military and supply them with surplus military kits.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Only if you've never been preyed on by the police.

A better analogy (although still not a good one) would be cats arguing among themselves that the tabby cats they've given guns to are the problem because they're tabby cats.

Or, you know, Animal Farm

I've seen too many situations where "the community" as a justice entity turns sour for me to be entirely comfortable with the idea. As someone else pointed out, look at any rape case with a local sports hero
 

Mumei

Member
Terrible naive ideas. There are loads of evil people out there. No criminal laws will lead to vigilante justice.

... That isn't even one of the things that is being suggested. And whatever the merits of the ideas, each one is accompanied by arguments for its inclusion and examples of them being enacted in the real world. If they are naive and foolish, it's on you to argue specifically why the examples of it working aren't relevant or why the arguments are wrong - or else don't bother filling the topic with posts that clearly indicate you didn't actually read the OP.

I realize that I'm singling this post out, but it's applicable to like, half the thread. "Lol nope!" is not a response. It's garbage.
 

gerg

Member
A better analogy (although still not a good one) would be cats arguing among themselves that the tabby cats they've given guns to are the problem because they're tabby cats.

Or, you know, Animal Farm

I've seen too many situations where "the community" as a justice entity turns sour for me to be entirely comfortable with the idea. As someone else pointed out, look at any rape case with a local sports hero

True, but Animal Farm was also an indictment of revolution as a way of affecting change, which is not necessarily linked to any societal structure, anarchist or otherwise.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
The more I think about number 1, the more I think that it doesn't work within the articles own larger premise. You can have unarmed peaceful patrols as a stable entity because of an armed police system around them: without that how do you enforce their unarmed nature? How do you stop an unarmed patrol from morphing into an armed mob?
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
True, but Animal Farm was also an indictment of revolution as a way of affecting change, which is not necessarily linked to any societal structure, anarchist or otherwise.

We are discussing a revolution though. That doesn't require violence and it doesn't even necessarily require friction but what we're discussing is effectively an upending of one of our major power structures to redistribute that power.
 

gerg

Member
We are discussing a revolution though. That doesn't require violence and it doesn't even necessarily require friction but what we're discussing is effectively an upending of one of our major power structures to redistribute that power.

What I meant to suggest was more that these policies might be gradually implemented over many dozens, or perhaps even hundreds, of years, the same way that the policies that define our current society have been built upon each other over the past dozens (if not hundreds) of years - my knowledge of the claim is superficial, but I believe there's an argument to be made that British law ultimately has its foundation in the Magna Carta, which was signed in 1215. What the article is suggesting might be considered the end-goal of that slow process of change. I don't think such a prolonged development could be considered any sort of conventional "revolution".
 
... That isn't even one of the things that is being suggested. And whatever the merits of the ideas, each one is accompanied by arguments for its inclusion and examples of them being enacted in the real world. If they are naive and foolish, it's on you to argue specifically why the examples of it working aren't relevant or why the arguments are wrong - or else don't bother filling the topic with posts that clearly indicate you didn't actually read the OP.

I realize that I'm singling this post out, but it's applicable to like, half the thread. "Lol nope!" is not a response. It's garbage.

Fair enough, I don't mind being singled out (I do have my real picture as my avatar after all). Item #2 I read as basically saying everything short of murder/attempted murder/rape will be de-criminalized. This leaves a lot of room for things that will really piss people off with no re-course and will turn to vigilante justice in their rage. Some examples would be someone killing someone else via a crash while drunk driving/texting, theft, white collar crimes where people extort all their money from them,etc. If you can't have any reasonable justice system for that then things would break down very quickly IMO.
 

kirblar

Member
... That isn't even one of the things that is being suggested. And whatever the merits of the ideas, each one is accompanied by arguments for its inclusion and examples of them being enacted in the real world. If they are naive and foolish, it's on you to argue specifically why the examples of it working aren't relevant or why the arguments are wrong - or else don't bother filling the topic with posts that clearly indicate you didn't actually read the OP.

I realize that I'm singling this post out, but it's applicable to like, half the thread. "Lol nope!" is not a response. It's garbage.
Because the ideas presented in the OP are garbage. The problem is, that like many bad ideas (being gay being "curable", drug tests for welfare, the gold standard), they don't die off because many people judge things based on feel/emotion instead of taking a hard look at them and examining the evidence.

The people holding these ideas aren't going to respond to appeals to data/rationality, because they're incapable of listening to them.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
I mean, don't get me wring, a lot of the ideas there are pretty good

As additions to a traditional police force

You need a force that is accountable both to its community but is also accountable to layers of higher powers. The problem is that were lacking the first, but the second is absolutely vital
 

99hertz

Member
My dad's a cop and from the story that he's told me they're pretty much a street gang with the support of the government. I have never needed the cops and the are only reason they I would need them is because getting a gun is expensive and almost impossible where I live. I can see how a world without cops would be better but it would need a massive social changes that are pretty much impossible.
 

kirblar

Member
I mean, don't get me wring, a lot of the ideas there are pretty good

As additions to a traditional police force

You need a force that is accountable both to its community but is also accountable to layers of higher powers. The problem is that were lacking the first, but the second is absolutely vital
We've figured out that pretty much any institution allowed to use force needs some sort of external oversight (military, police, etc)- but getting that implemented over their objections/lobbying is going to take a long-ass time, unfortunately.
 

Lagamorph

Member
Not really. Would the word be a better place if we threw people in jail for speeding or jaywalking? Probably not. Conversely, decriminalizing some other non violent offenses, particularly some drug related ones might go a long way in de-cluttering the court system and jails.

I don't think it's stupid at all, in fact it's been the trend for the last few years.

So you'd be all for decriminalising murder and just abolishing speed limits so people can do 100 outside a school then I take it?
 

Durask

Member
Read the first sentence. Humans were hunter gatherers for 99+% of their existence. Any anthropologist will tell you that. The evidence that pre-historical tribes were peaceful is pretty damn strong.

So what's your take on this then?

http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/docs/Volume118/Volume 118 No 2/3 Violence and warfare.pdf

Ifalik has been cited as one of the most peaceful societies in modern times
(Bonta 1993), but Betzig and Wichimai (1991) noted that Ifalik initiated wars
of annihilation against its neighbours as recently as the 19th century. When
the occupants of two Ifalik canoes were killed by the people of Lamotrek,
Ifalik invaded and killed everyone, resettling the island with its own people
(Trifonovitch 1971). Ifalik invaded Woleai and exterminated its population
after a chief was beaten in a dispute involving his wife. When Faraulep
experienced a civil war that killed all but one of its inhabitants, Ifalik warriors
sailed to the island, killed the sole survivor, and resettled the island (Burrows
and Spiro 1957).
Stephen M. Younger152 Violence and Warfare in the Pre-contact Caroline Islands
Arguments on Ifalik were most commonly over land and “there is evidence
that individual differences were not infrequently resolved by violence” (Betzig
and Wichimai 1991: 249). Interestingly, after the conquest of neighbouring
islands, the level of both interpersonal violence and warfare apparently
dropped significantly. By the time of Burrows and Spiro’s (1957) visit in the
mid-1950s, no one remembered a murder or grievous assault on the island.
Once Ifalik had conquered its near neighbours and eliminated all claims to
land rights, it had no easily accessible island to fight. Until the arrival of
Europeans, sufficient new land was available and an internal normative system
of humility and conformity prevailed to produce a low level of violence.
The social response to violence was a component of the value system of the
society. The demonstration of an aggressive personality was considered proof
of manhood on Chuuk, a positive value. On Ifalik (following neighbour island
conquest) aggressive behaviour towards another was strongly discouraged
and led to a diminution of personal prestige. Feelings of aggression on Ifalik
were expressed against ghosts rather than other human beings, a means of
recognising strong feelings while not disturbing social harmony (Spiro 1952).
The attitude towards violence may also have been affected by the political
situation. Ifaluk permitted violence until it dominated neighbour islands and
then shifted to a distinctly non-violent culture. Chuuk maintained political
divisions and violent competition was a means of establishing personal
identity and character. Both societies were essentially egalitarian, but each
expressed this egalitarianism in a different manner.
 
And that's where it all kind of gets impossible. Our lives as we know of them are touched in every respect by systems that are concerned with the distribution of various resources. Specialization of labor is at the heart of every aspect of our civilization.

This kind of sweeping societal overhauls only maybe potentially becomes feasible if we reach a post scarcity point and, uhm, we're nowhere near that

I talked about a real life example of a densely packed city that was run this way. It's fine if people prefer other solutions, or don't approve of the way things were run during the Spanish Revolution. But all these ideas were tested and they functioned quite well. In fact, productivity in factories increased dramatically. My original post:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=145146340&postcount=126

Well, it actually did in Spain back in 1936:

In Spain during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties (republicans, left and right Catalan separatists, socialists, Communists, Basque and Valencian regionalists, petty bourgeoisie, etc.), this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganized and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high salaried managers, or the authority of the state....

They coordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life. They replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity....

This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other.​

George Orwell visited and wrote about it:

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.—had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.​

...

Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized; even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said 'Señor' or 'Don' or even 'Usted'; everyone called everyone else 'Comrade' or 'Thou', and said 'Salud!' instead of 'Buenos días'. Tipping had been forbidden by law since the time of Primo de Rivera; almost my first experience was receiving a lecture from a hotel manager for trying to tip a lift-boy. There were no private motor-cars, they had all been commandeered, and the trams and taxis and much of the other transport were painted red and black. The revolutionary posters were everywhere, flaming from the walls in clean reds and blues that made the few remaining advertisements look like daubs of mud. Down the Ramblas, the wide central artery of the town where crowds of people streamed constantly to and fro, the loud-speakers were bellowing revolutionary songs all day and far into the night. And it was the aspect of the crowds that was the queerest thing of all. In outward appearance it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist. Except for a small number of women and foreigners there were no 'well-dressed' people at all. Practically everyone wore rough working-class clothes, or blue overalls or some variant of militia uniform. All this was queer and moving. There was much in this that I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for...so far as one could judge the people were contented and hopeful. There was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low; you saw very few conspicuously destitute people, and no beggars except the gypsies. Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine."​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom