I think police are necessary, but not it's not necessary for them to be employed by the state, which is what i think is the problem
One solution could be that each neighborhood elects a cop from their neighborhood and you can only be a cop for a limited time. Similar to how some countries have compulsory military service, but instead, it would like long term civil service, similar to jury duty.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
I think police are necessary, but not it's not necessary for them to be employed by the state, which is what i think is the problemOne solution could be that each neighborhood elects a cop from their neighborhood and you can only be a cop for a limited time. Similar to how some countries have compulsory military service, but instead, it would like long term civil service, similar to jury duty.
If the police is not employed by the state, who’s employs them? Better yet, what stops them from becoming a corrupt institution being runs by gangsters?
"If the police is not employed by the state, who’s employs them? Better yet, what stops them from becoming a corrupt institution being runs by gangsters?"
Im confused why you think the single attribute of being employed by the state keeps cops honest. Do you think fedex or ups workers are less trustworty than state employed mail men?
Originally posted by ilikecomics
"If the police is not employed by the state, who’s employs them? Better yet, what stops them from becoming a corrupt institution being runs by gangsters?"Im confused why you think the single attribute of being employed by the state keeps cops honest. Do you think fedex or ups workers are less trustworty than state employed mail men?
My point is who stops them when they commit a crime? Do we have another set of police to police the police?
If the police is no more, then the FBI, CIA, and every other law enforcement should also be remove.
Theres a reason Hoover was feared. For a time, he answered to no one but himself, because he controlled the agency fully.
Originally posted by SquallX
My point is who stops them when they commit a crime? Do we have another set of police to police the police?If the police is no more, then the FBI, CIA, and every other law enforcement should also be remove.
Theres a reason Hoover was feared. For a time, he answered to no one but himself, because he controlled the agency fully.
A president of the u.s. is one of. If not, the most powerful station in the world. To limit the maddening effects of this unbound power term limits were set, and two other branches of gov. Established to balance it.
If you understand that the most powerful station in the world can be assumed then balanced(with ovbious exceptions, as you mentioned hoover) but mostly it's balanced and america has had nothing close to the stalin, mao, hitler, regime and that's because the aforementioned controls. So if the presdient can exist reasonably then similar limits may help cops.
The main thing is that every individual citizen must be responsible, which extends to protecting yourself either through guns or karate or a dog or whatever, in the same way the founding fathers assumed America's population would be mostly informed, and when 1 in 5 has an iq of 85 and 70 iq is down syndrome level, we know that paradigm isnt being filled.
So instead of being a career cop as a choice, because there's great incentive to do so, you could make it like jury duty. If everyone knew that they or someone in their family could be the cop pulling them over, maybe shit wouldnt escalate as often, and if the cop knows being a cop is a burden of responsibility no a privilege of power, maybe the cop wont power trip and do something stupid. This would also make each individual jury duty style cop maintain allegiance to their families and neighborhood instead of their badge.
Also, im just spitballing with one possibility, i just think if you understand why term limits are critical to limit power madness then that would apply to cops.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
A president of the u.s. is one of. If not, the most powerful station in the world. To limit the maddening effects of this unbound power term limits were set, and two other branches of gov. Established to balance it.If you understand that the most powerful station in the world can be assumed then balanced(with ovbious exceptions, as you mentioned hoover) but mostly it's balanced and america has had nothing close to the stalin, mao, hitler, regime and that's because the aforementioned controls. So if the presdient can exist reasonably then similar limits may help cops.
The main thing is that every individual citizen must be responsible, which extends to protecting yourself either through guns or karate or a dog or whatever, in the same way the founding fathers assumed America's population would be mostly informed, and when 1 in 5 has an iq of 85 and 70 iq is down syndrome level, we know that paradigm isnt being filled.
So instead of being a career cop as a choice, because there's great incentive to do so, you could make it like jury duty. If everyone knew that they or someone in their family could be the cop pulling them over, maybe shit wouldnt escalate as often, and if the cop knows being a cop is a burden of responsibility no a privilege of power, maybe the cop wont power trip and do something stupid. This would also make each individual jury duty style cop maintain allegiance to their families and neighborhood instead of their badge.
Also, im just spitballing with one possibility, i just think if you understand why term limits are critical to limit power madness then that would apply to cops.
I understand where you’re coming from, but it simply does not work like that.
The presidency and senate members for serving one term receive a pension and personal body guards with term limits, yet they are still crooks.
No one would want to be a cop if at the end they receive nothing for putting there lives in danger. If the amount they are paid is raise significantly, then I can see an individual willingly choose to be a cop.
In the end look at Congress, there are term limits yet they are still crooks.
Like Thomas Sowell one said. Politicians makes laws on their beliefs, not on facts.
If the world was a better place, then I can see what you’re suggesting to be the way forward.
Originally posted by SquallX
I understand where you’re coming from, but it simply does not work like that.The presidency and senate members for serving one term receive a pension and personal body guards with term limits, yet they are still crooks.
No one would want to be a cop if at the end they receive nothing for putting there lives in danger. If the amount they are paid is raise significantly, then I can see an individual willingly choose to be a cop.
In the end look at Congress, there are term limits yet they are still crooks.
Like Thomas Sowell one said. Politicians makes laws on their beliefs, not on facts.
If the world was a better place, then I can see what you’re suggesting to be the way forward.
We should kill retirement and pension benefits for federal-level elected officials, then.
The elected office already provides "a sense of pride and accomplishment," right?
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Im saying that being a cop shouldn't have huge incentives. Look at being a firefighter or an emt, they get great benefits and work for the gov. Why arent they corrupt? Do you think firemen or emts would act any different if employed by a private hospital vs. A public one?
There is corruption in those orgs, for sure. Just not as rampant as police.
Police attracts power. And power attracts corruption.
Originally posted by dadudemon
There is corruption in those orgs, for sure. Just not as rampant as police.Police attracts power. And power attracts corruption.
Didnt know the first part, do you think lack of coverage on emt/firefighter corruption is politically motivated the same way over coverage on particular police shootings are ? Or do you think the incentives for being a cop select for negative personality traits like anti social tendencies, in a way emts/firefighters dont.
If the station of cop gives more power then it reminds me of how twitter is used to recruit western incels into isis because becoming a muslim is as simple as saying you are out loud and the reward is that you instantly have dominion over muslim women, become a philosopher and noble warrior.
These western men becoming muslims because of this would be analogous to unstable people joining the police force because personal gain, as opposed to a sense of duty.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Didnt know the first part, do you think lack of coverage on emt/firefighter corruption is politically motivated the same way over coverage on particular police shootings are ?
It just simply doesn't get coverage. This site breaks down fire department corruption in very specific and detailed terms:
https://www.subburndown.com/is-slo-city-fd-corrupt-fire-department/
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Or do you think the incentives for being a cop select for negative personality traits like anti social tendencies, in a way emts/firefighters dont.
Due to the power police have over the people, the violence that can come from interacting with the police, and the type of people the police force can attract (power hungry sadists, racists, etc.), you'll have far more abuses of power and corruption than with FDs. Someone who wants to be a fireman are literally in it for a job that is directly about saving people and property. Police are more about interacting with bad guys and catching the bad guys. The entire approach, from a psychological perception, is almost exactly the opposite.
Also, the people are far more likely to remember a bad experience with a cop than a fireman. The cop may have been there to arrest them, falsely accuse them of a crime, write a citation. A fireman may say they cannot climb on top of a building to rescue a cat due to building code or something silly. Completely different scenarios where someone is either traumatized or the other is just slightly buttmad. You can see why corruption would stand out much more with police than FDs. FDs corruption can be cutting corners and having lavish lunches, dinners, and "training" retreats. Police corruption is like sprinkling crack on a guy you just knocked out because he disrespected your badge.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It just simply doesn't get coverage. This site breaks down fire department corruption in very specific and detailed terms:https://www.subburndown.com/is-slo-city-fd-corrupt-fire-department/
Due to the power police have over the people, the violence that can come from interacting with the police, and the type of people the police force can attract (power hungry sadists, racists, etc.), you'll have far more abuses of power and corruption than with FDs. Someone who wants to be a fireman are literally in it for a job that is directly about saving people and property. Police are more about interacting with bad guys and catching the bad guys. The entire approach, from a psychological perception, is almost exactly the opposite.
Also, the people are far more likely to remember a bad experience with a cop than a fireman. The cop may have been there to arrest them, falsely accuse them of a crime, write a citation. A fireman may say they cannot climb on top of a building to rescue a cat due to building code or something silly. Completely different scenarios where someone is either traumatized or the other is just slightly buttmad. You can see why corruption would stand out much more with police than FDs. FDs corruption can be cutting corners and having lavish lunches, dinners, and "training" retreats. Police corruption is like sprinkling crack on a guy you just knocked out because he disrespected your badge.
Great post, man 🤘