Police having monopoly on (legal) violence does not mean the point of them existing is explicitly to terrorise people to the extent people are afraid to call them for assistance.
Only in places where they are allowed to become thugs is that the case.
That’s not what I said. It’s right there on the screen. Neither is it what the article says. I won’t engage with such rhetorical devices that border on sophistry.
If you have services available other than the police, it is in your interest to prefer those. Societaly, it is in our interest to offload non-violent services from the police onto social workers and other non-violent labour.
The police in all countries exist specifically to do violence against citizens of that country. That is literally their reason for existing.
You said they’re there to carry out violence on citizens. That’s not what the police are or should be for.
If you have services available other than the police, it is in your interest to prefer those.
No. You’re again thinking police are violent thugs everywhere.
it is in our interest to offload non-violent services from the police onto social workers and other non-violent labour.
That doesn’t make much sense to me.
My wife gets sexually harassed at work… is she just not supposed to call the police? My car gets stolen… am I not supposed to call the police? I see a policeman in the street and I am lost, is it wrong to ask for directions?
I appreciate that the police may be far more militaristic where you live, I acknowledge that I’m lucky in that regard, but you should at least acknowledge that that stuff varies place to place. I don’t think the belief that police should be/are only “violent labour” is a correct one.
No, you’re still misunderstanding. Police explicitly exist to do violence on behalf of the state. That is their exclusive function, everywhere, at all times.
If you do not need violence against your fellow citizens, do not call the police.
Police having monopoly on (legal) violence does not mean the point of them existing is explicitly to terrorise people to the extent people are afraid to call them for assistance.
Only in places where they are allowed to become thugs is that the case.
That’s not what I said. It’s right there on the screen. Neither is it what the article says. I won’t engage with such rhetorical devices that border on sophistry.
If you have services available other than the police, it is in your interest to prefer those. Societaly, it is in our interest to offload non-violent services from the police onto social workers and other non-violent labour.
Yes it is what you said.
You said they’re there to carry out violence on citizens. That’s not what the police are or should be for.
No. You’re again thinking police are violent thugs everywhere.
That doesn’t make much sense to me.
My wife gets sexually harassed at work… is she just not supposed to call the police? My car gets stolen… am I not supposed to call the police? I see a policeman in the street and I am lost, is it wrong to ask for directions?
I appreciate that the police may be far more militaristic where you live, I acknowledge that I’m lucky in that regard, but you should at least acknowledge that that stuff varies place to place. I don’t think the belief that police should be/are only “violent labour” is a correct one.
No, you’re still misunderstanding. Police explicitly exist to do violence on behalf of the state. That is their exclusive function, everywhere, at all times.
If you do not need violence against your fellow citizens, do not call the police.