How should the police handle protests? [Archive]

redflag32

8th April 2009, 22:51

Alternate questions: How should society handle police protests? How should society handle army protests?

In an anarchist society, basically everyone would be a police officer / member of the military. So if what you have is one group of people protesting, then everyone has the right to police them, and the protestors have the right to police everyone else.

Assuming everyone (or nearly everyone) is against murder or assault (which is generally the case), then everyone will have the right to stop someone from attempting to murder or assault someone else, regardless of what "role" in society that person plays - whether he's designated as a "protestor" or as "riot police".

Are you for real? Is this what equates as Anarchist theory?

punisa

8th April 2009, 22:57

They should take part in the protests and back up the protesters! :p But this implies that they could use their brain for just one minute and ignore the Fuehrer's orders... I guess this is there the whole idea fails.

Just a quick question on this one. Did it ever happend in the history of demonstrations/riots? That the police (or part of it) took side of the protesters?
If yes, then that would be a good event to research :)

#FF0000

8th April 2009, 23:09

Just a quick question on this one. Did it ever happend in the history of demonstrations/riots? That the police (or part of it) took side of the protesters?
If yes, then that would be a good event to research :)

Well, I don't know about the police, but the military has done it before, in Russia, particularly.

punisa

8th April 2009, 23:22

Well, I don't know about the police, but the military has done it before, in Russia, particularly.
nice :) Well, your average military man can not be less brainwashed then a policeman.
Wonder if anyone went to the lengths to plan out the ways to accomplish such a "turn around".

I guess it still comes down to the moles dealing with the chiefs of police or military, I kinda doubt that a "romantic" turn over could actually be accomplished on the protesting battlefield.
Although this sounds like a slick Hollywood theme, I still think the idea has potential :lol:

Coggeh

9th April 2009, 00:27

Just a quick question on this one. Did it ever happend in the history of demonstrations/riots? That the police (or part of it) took side of the protesters?
If yes, then that would be a good event to research :)
I pretty sure the police did that in Bolivia in 2003ish during the gas riots? I could be wrong though .

Nils T.

9th April 2009, 01:32

The first day of Paris Commune, the army and the local republican milice joined the protesters and arrested their general after he gave the order to shoot at the crowd.
But I don't know of any recent example, and that was not exactly the police, though the police at that time was not in charge of handling protests and riots. If one riot goes far enough to have the chief order the police to shoot, maybe then they will change side.

In an anarchist society, basically everyone would be a police officer / member of the military.No. What you describe is a fascist utopia.

Orange Juche

9th April 2009, 03:36

How is an armed population fascist?

You didn't say we'd have an armed population. You said everyone would be police officer and member of the military. There's a huge difference.

Nils T.

9th April 2009, 05:05

In an anarchist society, there'd be no one to take back the weapons that the population used during the revolution anyway. But if this population use them to impose laws and orders among itself, then there's no anarchy.

RebelDog

9th April 2009, 05:47

an apple

9th April 2009, 05:56

What did the police do? I heard about the guy being beaten up, but what else did they do on the day?

ZeroNowhere

9th April 2009, 06:44

nice Well, your average military man can not be less brainwashed then a policeman.
Wonder if anyone went to the lengths to plan out the ways to accomplish such a "turn around".
Well, if we're talking about Russia, apparently we would require the army to be fighting hopeless battles and dropping like flies, without enough food, medical equipment, hardly any rifles and ammunition, etc, while almost everyone else was starving even more.

In other news, vigilante justice is only good when Batman does it.

Patchd

9th April 2009, 17:15

The first day of Paris Commune, the army and the local republican milice joined the protesters and arrested their general after he gave the order to shoot at the crowd.

That's true, or so I've heard, but we must remember the police today do not have the same nature as those a century back. The Army on the other hand is different, but even then, there's a difference between a conscripted Army which will be a lot more spontaneous, revolutionary and volatile, and a completely volunteer force, even though in America, the Army there does still have a small revolutionary element to it.

Either way, both the Armed forces, and the police force rely on the dehumanising of those involved, the mechanisation of them one could say as well. They are expected to take orders from the top, and in most cases, will comply as "they're only doing their job", whether this be to arrest people pissing in the street, or to smash someone's head in with a truncheon at a demo: "they're only doing their job".

Just to clarify, I am opposed to the Police Force.

punisa

9th April 2009, 19:29

You didn't say we'd have an armed population. You said everyone would be police officer and member of the military. There's a huge difference.

The day that the struggle for socialism incorporates a final goal of having "an armed population" is the day when you can count me out.

Soldier of life

9th April 2009, 20:17

The day that the struggle for socialism incorporates a final goal of having "an armed population" is the day when you can count me out.

Do you disagree with arming the workers?

cyu

9th April 2009, 20:50

Are you for real? Is this what equates as Anarchist theory?

What problems do you have with it? Do you think it isn't valid anarchism? Or do you feel it isn't workable? (And please explain why you feel this way.)

In an anarchist society, there'd be no one to take back the weapons that the population used during the revolution anyway. But if this population use them to impose laws and orders among itself, then there's no anarchy.

Does your definition of anarchism mean everyone is running around randomly killing everyone else? That is not my definition. Here's an analogy: capitalist is to communist like dictator is to anarchist. The capitalist wants to own all the property, while the communist wants everyone to be able to share material goods. The dictator wants all the power and restrict everyone else's freedoms, while the anarchist wants to distribute that power among everyone and protect everyone's freedoms.

As someone on another website once said, "My freedom to swing my fist stops at your face."

The day that the struggle for socialism incorporates a final goal of having "an armed population" is the day when you can count me out.

There are interim goals and post-revolution goals. For example, if only your nation is socialist, then having an armed population is a good idea because you may be invaded at any time by foreign capitalist forces. So what happens when the entire world is socialist? Would you remove all weapons from the world? Do you believe there is not life on other planets?

Maybe you could build a society where nobody would feel the need to menace others with weapons (and I would certainly support and try to help you in achieving this goal), but I think 100% success would be nigh impossible. In that case, at least some "approved" people in your society will have to be allowed to use weapons to combat them. This is where it snowballs. How do you know those "approved" people won't become corrupt themselves and then dominate society? The safest protection against oppression in this case would be for everyone to be allowed to use weapons - this doesn't necessarily mean you're trying to create a society where firearms are accidentally popping off and killing random people every day - guns do have safeties for a reason, after all. You just need some process where everyone has access to the necessary equipment to defend themselves, while keeping accidents to a minimum.

punisa

9th April 2009, 21:53

Do you disagree with arming the workers?
Yes I do, this is not 1917.
Besides, every fourth or so citizen of US has a weapon. There's your critical armed (working) mass right there, care to carry out a revolution?

I'm not saying its not going to work, or that the specific theory is not a part of a revolutionary Marxism. I juts state, for myself, that I'd never join such a revolution.
Unfortunately I saw first hand what "arming workers" leads to..

Nils T.

10th April 2009, 05:13

Here's an analogy: capitalist is to communist like dictator is to anarchist. The capitalist wants to own all the property, while the communist wants everyone to be able to share material goods. The dictator wants all the power and restrict everyone else's freedoms, while the anarchist wants to distribute that power among everyone and protect everyone's freedoms.
Sharing and owning are radically different processes, structurally and symbollically speaking. But the power of a dictator and the power you seem to want to give to everyone are the same. I don't want a society full of individual capitalists more than I want a society full of individual dictators.

If I have to choose between everyone running around killing at random and everyone running around killing for justice, I would choose without a second of hesitation the first. At least we'd still have freedom and equality, and some kind of humane sort of relationship between us.

Rebel_Serigan

10th April 2009, 06:29

Nils T.

10th April 2009, 07:39

Just as you said, every fourth person in the US has a weapon. Good news for us, more armed workers. You can sit aside and let the people who understand how the world works do what is neccesarrySorry, but I won't do nothing necessary. The revolution must be the work of the entire revolutionnary class. But I'll share a bit of my understanding.
That's not news, and that's no good. The armed parts of the US civilian population can't do anything against their army. Fight it ? They can't even protest against it. They're just clients for the guns and for the one free piece of dominant ideology.

ComradeR

10th April 2009, 13:00

While I am for armed workers the idea of living in a society where you have an armed population where everyone polices everyone else is a very disturbing idea. It is essentially armed vigilantism were you have groups enforcing laws they agree with or even make up themselves anyway they see fit. In todays society which would you rather have facing you at a protest? The police with batons and tear gas or a vigilante group with guns and grenades? (this is not an endorsement of the police btw it's just an example). As I understand it in a communist society we would have a single volunteer militia per area which answers to that areas soviet as opposed to a society where everyone is armed and policing everyone else.
This is actually rather ironic as I was discussing this topic earlier about a state senator here who recently caused a stir when he suggested having armed citizens police them selfs in answer to budget cuts in law enforcement.

punisa

10th April 2009, 13:04

Armed resistance is inevitable. I do not know what sort of wacky little utopian revelution you think is comming but you may want to revamp your view. Even if Capitolism collapses without a single shot fired at it the fact will still stand that everyone will want a piece of the demolished goverment. Take a lesson from Africa, a distabilized country is a violent country. Now before you start to think the military will keep the peace you need a reality check. When the government falls the military is going to be first in line for userption. Conflict Theory never fails and it is always there. Pacifism is a nice dream but imposible. Just as you said, every fourth person in the US has a weapon. Good news for us, more armed workers. You can sit aside and let the people who understand how the world works do what is neccesarry, you will still reap the rewards when it is all over. We will not discriminate against your cowardice.

Providing such a nice quotation of your statements really sums up all that I disagree with on this board and left in general.

By your theory all we need is the angry self-aware working class with possession of a firearm.
To do what? Shoot their bosses? Shoot his/her friend that used to drive a nicer car?
No, no wait... I forgot that the masses are actually responsible individuals that would never abuse their new born powers. Yeah, right.

This idea could fly 100 years ago for a million different reasons. Nowadays you'd just end up with walking potential killing machines. A huge citizen militia that would never demilitarize and eventually struggle for power of their own.
You'd end up in a nice commie paradise that indeed is capitalist free, but it now hosts two kinds of the proletariat. One with guns and one without them.

Working class must be united, but not with gunpowder. They must seek a mutual collective goal. A clear vision of their lives to be. Arming them as of now would be disastrous.

Hypothetical speaking, if you could somehow conduct a mass hypnosis that would implement the certain scope of ideas into every single working man and women over night, tomorrow capitalism would be no more.
No army, no police, no nothing could ever bring it back.

Hence capitalism does exists today solely because the working class is uneducated upon their role and exploitation in the "machine". If you could change this, you would change the world.
(the majority of African violence you mention comes because of the lack of education)

But no, that's the "cowardice" way right? Only a sissy-revolutionary struggles to open working people's eyes and minds. A real revolutionary loads a gun and goes on a rampage.
Torch the winter castle to the ground right?

When the working class is ready and willing it must take matters into its own hands. On that way it can not be stopped by any other force. If during this transition to the dictatorship of the proletariat it does face an armed resistance, then it must defend and retaliate.
But knowing that around 95% of the people on this nice little planet is working class, I fail to see that remaining 5% being able to do anything about it.

In other words, a group of 3000 protesters can be stopped by the police units, a group of 3.000,000 can only be stopped by a comet or a nuclear bomb.

To end on a note that you will surely understand, I'll just ping-pong your own statement back at you: "I do not know what sort of wacky little utopian revolution you think is coming but you may want to revamp your view."

cyu

10th April 2009, 20:48

As I understand it in a communist society we would have a single volunteer militia per area which answers to that areas soviet as opposed to a society where everyone is armed and policing everyone else.

So how do you decide who gets to join the "volunteer militia" and who doesn't? What if everyone volunteers? Then does your militia include everybody? If so, then that's basically everyone policing everyone else. If not, then you'll need some selection criteria. What kind of criteria? Are you just setting your society up for a scenario in which one group of people with certain characteristics gets to oppress another group of people without those characteristics?

If I have to choose between everyone running around killing at random and everyone running around killing for justice, I would choose without a second of hesitation the first.

Well, since you probably don't understand anarchism, or at least, don't understand the kind of anarchism I support, here is why I consider myself to be more a supporter of anarchism than a supporter of majority democracy - from http://everything2.com/node/1932002 :

There's an argument against democracy that claims it can lead to mob rule. One common quote is that "it's two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner". See also tyranny of the majority.

There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.

If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.

If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.

If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.

There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.

Supporters of decentralized democracy would use their own power to protect the right of others to make the decisions that most affect them. For example, this includes protecting other peoples' lives, whether it's from government or non-government forces.

I forgot that the masses are actually responsible individuals that would never abuse their new born powers. Yeah, right.

So who are "responsible individuals"? The police? What makes them so special? If you don‘t think people in general are trustworthy enough, why then would police officers in general be trustworthy enough?

Just because police officers freely decide to join the police force doesn‘t mean they are doing it for noble reasons. If you think you can prevent police officers from abusing their power, then you should be able to keep everyone else from abusing their power. If you don‘t think you can prevent everyone else from abusing their power, then you can‘t prevent police officers from abusing their power. You can‘t have it both ways. It’s not like police officers have special DNA or something.

punisa

10th April 2009, 22:05

Just because police officers freely decide to join the police force doesn‘t mean they are doing it for noble reasons. If you think you can prevent police officers from abusing their power, then you should be able to keep everyone else from abusing their power. If you don‘t think you can prevent everyone else from abusing their power, then you can‘t prevent police officers from abusing their power. You can‘t have it both ways. It’s not like police officers have special DNA or something.

Talking to an Anarchist about role of the police force would be like talking to a Taliban about religion being the opium for the masses.
To keep it short, you really do have to provoke a situation (in a civilised country) to find yourself at the police's gunpoint, on the other hand the same doesn't fly with armed civilians (been there, done that)

Being a policeman is a job, when you get hired you get paid to do what is told to you.
I don't see it as any more negative as I see people working in marketing departments.

If boss tells you to lie to people and promote a potentially hazardous product by making a slick commercial for it - you do it.
If boss tells you to baton the bunch of protesters - you do it.

Couple of cops beat up your friends, couple of marketing artists poison your whole revolutionary mass.
It's a waste of time and effort discussing all that is wrong in the capitalism, virtually everything is wrong. But we do live in it as of today.
The final goal must be to reshape both - the police and the marketers.

First group must regulate order, the second must be responsible for public announcements.
These are just 2 professions picked at random, the scope could go much further.

If you think you can prevent police officers from abusing their power, then you should be able to keep everyone else from abusing their power.

Officers? You mean as those officers that beat up people?
Comrade, judging from your comment I believe you're smart enough to realise that it is not down to the "officers" to choose how much power they can or can not abuse.
These unwritten elements are direct standpoints of their own bosses.

There are many evidences to back it up.
For example, during the war, two divisions of the same army has the mission to capture two enemy villages.
Same blend of drafted soldiers, age group 20 - 35, same village size, same enemy resistance, same year.

Result: both missions were success, both villages were captured.
Difference: first village was ransacked, pillaged and women were raped/killed.
Second village was not.

Is it some marvellous crazy coincidence that the second unit was so full of humanity and morale that they refused to act and conduct themselves in the manners of a "bad" soldier?

Think about my dear fellow Anarchist.

Pirate turtle the 11th

10th April 2009, 22:26

"we were just following orders" - Nuremberg defense.

Nils T.

10th April 2009, 22:44

There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.Right. I don't understand.

First the detail : the decision to kill someone affects the survivors more than the victim, because the victim don't exist after having been killed. That's so obvious (considering we're all atheists here) that we usually don't consider it relevant. Yet in the case of the decentralized democracy you're describing, that fact change everything. The decision of killing somebody is to be taken out of all the moral rules that most of us accept as sacred and definitive. The value of the human life fall from its absolute pedestal, in the mud puddles of human relations - or out of it. If one has poor relations within its community, the decision is the killer's; if not, one better hope that his friends outnumber the rest.
How can justice exist in such a situation ? there's no more crimes, only circumstances, and no more police, only people favorised by the said circumstances to have a democratic legitimacy.

Supporters of decentralized democracy would use their own power to protect the right of others to make the decisions that most affect them. For example, this includes protecting other peoples' lives, whether it's from government or non-government forces.I won't point out the part about the supporters of the system, it seems a bit out of your own plans.
Protecting other people's lives ? But not from the most affected ?
Still on death-or-life matters, but not about the criminal cases, i'll drift to suicide. I like to discuss with other suicidal people when I get the occasion. And one of the main reasons why I do get the occasions, just after cowardice, is that their families and friends would be most affected. That's true, and sometimes they act nonetheless. With an apology note when they really care.
Is that an exception to your rule of the most affected ? Has one sovereignty over its own life, no matter the consequences ? Then how can people police others, if one has a right to veto decisions concerning his life ? No restraint, no punishment : no police.
No democracy either, then, except if we accept moral and legal rules that say that this act is not equivalent to this one, so that logic can be interrupted before the end of all rules. No democracy without a central authority.

I don't understand the kind of anarchism you support because the equation "a democracy of one = anarchy" is false. Anarchy is not democracy.

ComradeR

11th April 2009, 10:10

So how do you decide who gets to join the "volunteer militia" and who doesn't? What if everyone volunteers? Then does your militia include everybody? If so, then that's basically everyone policing everyone else. If not, then you'll need some selection criteria. What kind of criteria? Are you just setting your society up for a scenario in which one group of people with certain characteristics gets to oppress another group of people without those characteristics?You missed my point completely, my argument is not about who joins the militia but to whom it answers to. Who it is controlled by. Those with weapons have power over those who don't. So by having a single militia that is controlled by the Soviet as opposed to having several groups where "everyone polices everyone else" that answers only to themselves, makes it far less likely to lead to a situation where you have armed groups enforcing they're view of things on everyone else. The idea is to have those with weapons controlled by the people as opposed to the people controlled by those with weapons.

So how do you decide who gets to join the "volunteer militia" and who doesn't?I would think it's self evident but anyone who volunteers and is physically and mentally able could join.

What if everyone volunteers? Then does your militia include everybody?A ridiculous hypothetical. Never in history has there been a situation where everyone in a society chooses to be a militiamen. There are those who do and those who don't. But regardless, if everyone joined and is physically and mentally capable of doing it then everyone would be a militiamen. This changes nothing about my argument.

Are you just setting your society up for a scenario in which one group of people with certain characteristics gets to oppress another group of people without those characteristics?The very point of my argument is to prevent this situation from happening.

cyu

11th April 2009, 20:00

you really do have to provoke a situation (in a civilised country) to find yourself at the police's gunpoint, on the other hand the same doesn't fly with armed civilians (been there, done that)

What is the difference? Sure, you might provoke one armed civilian, but if that particular individual does something he shouldn't be doing, then he's just provoking the other armed civilians.

By the way, since this original question was probably asked because of the assault on Ian Tomlinson, what evil thing do you think he did to provoke the riot police that attacked him?

it is not down to the "officers" to choose how much power they can or can not abuse.

That doesn't make a difference. Let's take your statement as fact: that officers are incapable of doing anything against their orders, how are you going to prevent their superiors from becoming corrupted or power hungry?

Difference: first village was ransacked, pillaged and women were raped/killed.

So you would prefer it if the first village did not have armed civilians and therefore was not able to defend itself?

cyu

11th April 2009, 20:20

If one has poor relations within its community, the decision is the killer's; if not, one better hope that his friends outnumber the rest.

There's a difference between who actually makes the decision, and who "should" make the decision. Of course, in the case of a murder, the murderer is the one making the decision to kill someone. However, when you get around the asking who "should" make that decision, the you are basically asking how the community will respond to the act of murder.

So if supporters of decentralized democracy say the victim "should" be the person making the decision, then it basically means the community will respond to past and potential future violations of the victims' rights by preventing the murderer from doing it again.

their families and friends would be most affected

Families and friends are affected, but obviously the individual himself is more affected than they are (unless the individual himself were absolutely necessary for the survival of other people, in which case, they would all be equally hurt if this person dies).

Then how can people police others, if one has a right to veto decisions concerning his life ?

Not sure what you mean here. I don't believe in capital punishment, if that's what you mean. However, if you're a serial killer, then obviously everyone who is a potential future victim is affected by decisions regarding your freedom of movement - thus they too have a say in where you are allowed to go.

except if we accept moral and legal rules that say that this act is not equivalent to this one, so that logic can be interrupted before the end of all rules.

Yes, I agree it's not an exact science or code of conduct, but like almost all principles, decentralized democracy is a starting point that you base your decisions off of. Either you accept it as a worthy goal, and use it to make future decisions, or you reject it, and use some other method to determine how decisions are made.

Let's say you reject decentralized democracy. Would you allow 51% of the voters to vote for the execution of 49%? If not, why not? What principles would you use to argue against this? Let's say execution was not involved - would you allow 51% of the voters to force 49% to eat something that they don't want to eat for lunch? If not, why not? What principles would you use to argue against this?

"a democracy of one = anarchy" is false. Anarchy is not democracy

Imagine if the world were divided into billions of countries. Each country is a democracy and within each country, there lived only 1 person. Thus each country would have a democracy of one. What would you call this situation?

cyu

11th April 2009, 20:27

So by having a single militia that is controlled by the Soviet as opposed to having several groups where "everyone polices everyone else" that answers only to themselves, makes it far less likely to lead to a situation where you have armed groups enforcing they're view of things on everyone else.

So who controls the "Soviet"? Let's say the soviet were democratically controlled. There would be many different ideas in the electorate. Some groups want this, some want that. If group A gains control, then they are basically using the single armed group under their control to enforce their view of things on everyone else. How would you prevent this? Would everyone else have the right to defend themselves?

punisa

11th April 2009, 22:22

What is the difference? Sure, you might provoke one armed civilian, but if that particular individual does something he shouldn't be doing, then he's just provoking the other armed civilians.

From this view, you're just switching places. Puting armed civilians into police shoes.
Now that would be one seriously nasty place to live.

By the way, since this original question was probably asked because of the assault on Ian Tomlinson, what evil thing do you think he did to provoke the riot police that attacked him?

I personally never mentioned Ian's case and don't even have enough info to comment on it.

That doesn't make a difference. Let's take your statement as fact: that officers are incapable of doing anything against their orders, how are you going to prevent their superiors from becoming corrupted or power hungry?

Police officers are not educated in the manners of classical education. They are drilled like dogs. If their masters says "bite" they bite, if they say "easy", they'll obey.
This is clear brainwashing strategy.
(a good read on the subject: Erich Fromm - The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, 1973)

Superiors you say? well exactly the point !
My whole point, which many here just refuse to get, is that we should be concentrated on changing/toppling/braking the system from top to bottom - NOT the other way around. Otherwise it's just useless waste of time and energy.

But bringing such a discussion to the table here usually results in the very childish comments such as "at least we are doing something, you're just to scared to fight with the pigs".
Hell, how old are you people anyway?

So you would prefer it if the first village did not have armed civilians and therefore was not able to defend itself?

What are you talking about? Did you even read my post or are you just quoting me at random? :confused:

ComradeR

12th April 2009, 10:41

So who controls the "Soviet"? Let's say the soviet were democratically controlled. There would be many different ideas in the electorate. Some groups want this, some want that. If group A gains control, then they are basically using the single armed group under their control to enforce their view of things on everyone else. How would you prevent this? Would everyone else have the right to defend themselves?
First off by Soviet I obviously refer to a democratic workers council, I shouldn't have to point this out. Second, while such a scenario is possable (and always will be regardless of the system in place) the nature of the Soviet would make it the lest likely to occur.
Now let me ask you something. In your view of this (where everyone is armed and essentially polices their neighbor) what happens when several armed people disagree over an issue and form into groups in order to attempt to force their view on the others? What is to prevent this society from disintegrating into a form of warlordism? What about those who don't want to or can't be armed, are they to just be at the mercy of those who are?

12th April 2009, 14:54

Police should handle non-violent protests like they do in Cuba: by ignoring them.

cyu

12th April 2009, 21:46

From this view, you're just switching places. Puting armed civilians into police shoes.
Now that would be one seriously nasty place to live.

If civilians can't rule themselves, who should?

Maybe I just don't understand what you are proposing as an alternative. What do you propose as an alternative anyway? (Maybe I missed a post.)

cyu

12th April 2009, 21:51

Now let me ask you something. In your view of this (where everyone is armed and essentially polices their neighbor) what happens when several armed people disagree over an issue and form into groups in order to attempt to force their view on the others? What is to prevent this society from disintegrating into a form of warlordism? What about those who don't want to or can't be armed, are they to just be at the mercy of those who are?

That's a good question. The reason I support arming everyone is because I support decentralized democracy, and see an armed population as a way to implement it.

Obviously, if most of the people in the population were fascists, I wouldn't be advocating arming everyone.

In other words, I'm already assuming that everyone (or nearly everyone) in the population already supports decentralized democracy. The next step (after declaring their support) would be to ask how to implement it - and that's when this issue comes in.

It's like advocating a car for everyone - it has to happen within a certain environment, or the policy would be useless. For example, advocating universal car ownership while banning gas stations and traffic lights is basically an idea that would be dead in the water.

redarmyfaction38

12th April 2009, 21:56

A watchdog is looking into how a man died soon after being pushed by police. Are police tactics too strong?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

this probably all ready been pointed out, but the police are being investigated in the first instance by the same police that carried out the assault and the ipcc are quite happy with that.
if you read eye witness accounts of the assault by the police on the "climate change camp", you will understand that the full force of the capitalist state is being deployed to undermine/intimidate any kind of opposition to the policies of the failed capitalist parties and their bankrupt system.
bankrupt i would add in both political and economic terms.
this isn't going to get any better, at this moment in time, it is our jobs as revolutionaries, to expose the brutality of the capitalist police state, to expose the futility of capitalist economic solutions and the price us workers will pay if we don't resist.
imo.

punisa

13th April 2009, 10:08

If civilians can't rule themselves, who should?

Maybe I just don't understand what you are proposing as an alternative. What do you propose as an alternative anyway? (Maybe I missed a post.)

Calling for an armed civilization needs great research in human psychology. The drawbacks of this idea are numerous and potentially dangerous.
Obviously your knowledge outside of this scope is fairly limited.
But observing that this whole board mainly constitutes of anarchists and alike, my further debate would be of utmost uselessness and a waste of key punches - a sort of "fighting with the windmills" effect.
Any reasonable argument against armed population here usually results in some lame comments that tend to describe you as pacifist utopian or even worse - a coward.

I'll just let you comrades be and resist the urge to further develop my ideas on this particular topic.

cyu

13th April 2009, 19:44

Calling for an armed civilization needs great research in human psychology. The drawbacks of this idea are numerous and potentially dangerous.

So you think you are better versed in human psychology than I am? Maybe you are, maybe you aren't - but I would like to know why you believe this. Do you have a degree in psychology maybe? Or perhaps you spend more time reading books on psychology than I do?

my further debate would be of utmost uselessness and a waste of key punches

You're not going to make it very far as a politician with an attitude like that. The whole point of getting involved in politics is expressing, discussing, and spreading your ideas. If you're not even going to submit your proposals to a website of many potential allies (ie. leftists), how can you hope to convince the non-leftists of the world?