I'm not saying "everyone" should help the police. I do think it's alright that a few companies, in specialized professions, exist to help the police (and other governmental organizations).
Yes, a lot of the effect is harmful, including in helping police do harm. But an argument that no-one should help the police is basically an argument the police shouldn't exist.
I'd argue that nobody should help the police as they exist in many modern implementations, because the police as they exist now are often bad actors. But it's not hard to imagine a police force that's held to a higher standard such that they actually are trustworthy. The argument doesn't have to be "police shouldn't exist"--it could be "police should be better".
But since we lack an individually actionable way of making the police better, doesn't the argument reduce to "we should not help the police as they are now"?
Yes, tautologically, "no-one should help the police" means "we should not help the police as they are now", but given that's obvious, I suspect that's not what you intend to say.
My previous post was responding to your claim "But an argument that no-one should help the police is basically an argument the police shouldn't exist", which is incorrect. The two are very different arguments.
The police could not exist if most people refused to help them. Arguing for people not to help the police is therefore arguing for the police to stop existing or to become less powerful or less effective.
I take "not helping" to mean not just not developing specialized products that only police can legally use, but also not calling the police in case of crime, not helping them with investigations as witnesses. Where the law permits, not selling them generic products and services (eg food). And where personal circumstances permit, not working for a company that does business with them, deplatforming them, etc.
Many reasonable people do indeed take the position that the recent development of a paramilitary force, professionally tasked with keeping domestic peace, has been a bad way to achieve law and order.
So sure, I'll make an argument that today's police - and the private companies who enable them to perform end-arounds on quintessential rights - are contrary to the western common-law tradition and that society will be better when we end this short experiment and move on to a different approach.
Comments
I'm not saying "everyone" should help the police. I do think it's alright that a few companies, in specialized professions, exist to help the police (and other governmental organizations).
Yes, a lot of the effect is harmful, including in helping police do harm. But an argument that no-one should help the police is basically an argument the police shouldn't exist.
No it's not.
I'd argue that nobody should help the police as they exist in many modern implementations, because the police as they exist now are often bad actors. But it's not hard to imagine a police force that's held to a higher standard such that they actually are trustworthy. The argument doesn't have to be "police shouldn't exist"--it could be "police should be better".
But since we lack an individually actionable way of making the police better, doesn't the argument reduce to "we should not help the police as they are now"?
Yes, tautologically, "no-one should help the police" means "we should not help the police as they are now", but given that's obvious, I suspect that's not what you intend to say.
My previous post was responding to your claim "But an argument that no-one should help the police is basically an argument the police shouldn't exist", which is incorrect. The two are very different arguments.
The police could not exist if most people refused to help them. Arguing for people not to help the police is therefore arguing for the police to stop existing or to become less powerful or less effective.
I take "not helping" to mean not just not developing specialized products that only police can legally use, but also not calling the police in case of crime, not helping them with investigations as witnesses. Where the law permits, not selling them generic products and services (eg food). And where personal circumstances permit, not working for a company that does business with them, deplatforming them, etc.
Many reasonable people do indeed take the position that the recent development of a paramilitary force, professionally tasked with keeping domestic peace, has been a bad way to achieve law and order.
So sure, I'll make an argument that today's police - and the private companies who enable them to perform end-arounds on quintessential rights - are contrary to the western common-law tradition and that society will be better when we end this short experiment and move on to a different approach.