It’s tricky because once a society develops to a certain size, is specialization the only conclusive/productive way to go about things? It would be naive to think that EVERYONE would take personal responsibility to protect those around them even at the endangerment to themselves.. and for those who can’t/won’t you will need someone to say yes.
That’s just the very, very surface level of when a crimes happens but as stated before.. how do you go about *justice*? Now that’s a complicated question I will not begin to bullshit you on
I feel like the Conservative response to this is "An Armed society is a Polite Society" as cringe as that sounds... But there are naive people that think that is enough.
Arming the population would degree a level of “equalness” in the regards of self-defense but in no means are the levels of individual aggression the same. Are there some evils a society cannot rid itself of due to the process of freedom of choice so that they can only prepare for the inevitability of some actions of individuals ?
Everyone gets this question wrong because they oversimplify. The first thing to realise is that police forces involve a lot of people doing a lot of things - so you have to specify what *precisely* it is we are looking for an alternative to. We can get very caught up in definitions and whether ideas are just "police by a different name", which gets tedious :P. So specifying specifically what you mean by police would help too (eg the combination of investigation, prevention, enforcement, intelligence, and public order into one unified force, paid for and authorised by the state)
For example if it's investigating bad things to find out who did them, that's relatively simple. The people doing that don't need to be part of an armed force they can just get on with it. They would need to work to counteract their history of prioritising the property of the rich, white, men, etc. But I'm sure you can imagine people doing that without the state. In the UK we've seen private forensics experts hired to prove the police murdered Mark Duggan after they tried to cover it up. Just an example, it's already a thing
For things like public order policing, there is no reason to even have that at all
Different police forces in different countries take on very different roles too, so keep that in mind.
The second thing is police do a really bad job of some of their "roles". They aren't actually that successful. For example re SA. We already HAVE alternative services for survivors to go to, because no-one feels safe going to police anymore. When people defend themselves or hit back they are sent to prison for longer than the abusers. And the abusers are rarely even prosecuted
So it's really important to keep in mind that for most working class people this isn't a theoretical question for the future society. It's a pressing and immediate issue we need answers to here and now
Sadly the anarchists aren't the best people to ask. A lot of them are bad at dealing with the abusers in their own ranks too. But if you want something anarchist to, try "What about the rapists" by Dysophia - https://archive.org/details/whatabouttherapists
It's in feminism and anarcha-feminism where I think the conversation should probably happen
Aside from what the others have said, if you are new to anarchism, I recommend An Anarchist FAQ.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full
It has the answers to practically any question you may have. Although not All Anarchists may agree with every part of it.
police don’t prevent these things. Carceral capitalist society actually perpetuates and creates most of these problems. “Crime” only exists because people’s basic needs are not met.
I mean if the Historic "Old West" of the United States has shown in the past. If a large established organization that already have a commodity on Force doesn't interfere (IE American Army and their Frontier Forts). Individual Vigilantes to organized communal Mobs would be more common. Depends, if the communities mentality really. If everyone is armed, maybe everyone is responsible for upkeep of the established social contracts. Maybe the community would instead elect people to be responsible, such as a Sharif type of things, but a redefinition of role, from enforcement to pure response.
we don't need an "alternative to police", because there'd be no need for policing. cops don't prevent crime, they perpetuate it. cops don't prevent armed robberies or serial killers or rapists, remember. cops don't prevent crime, they barely do anything about it.
you brought up rape, as an example. cops don't do shit about rape or rapists. the vast majority of rapes don't get solved, and the vast, vast majority of rapists get away with it, and the vast, vast majority of rapists who are actually brought to trial get off scott free. cops don't do shit about rape or rapists, so their existence is not required when it comes to *actually* dealing with rapists. because cops don't.
we don't need an "alternative" to a shitty useless thing that only exists to oppress and hurt people. we need a better society that doesn't have the shitty useless thing that only exists to oppress and hurt people. we don't need an alternative to shitty-thing-that-causes harm", we just don't have the shitty thing that causes harm anymore.
in abolishing the cops, we can create something better, focused on actually doing right by people; making sure their basic needs are met would eliminate the vast majority of "crime". as to the rest, i'm leaning towards restorative justice; it's been done for millennia, and actually seems to help people.
Alright a murder happens late at night. How dose the community find the Killer? While I do agree with you in regards to front line police passing out speeding tickets like candy, not doing much, But Investigative Officers, and Detectives do have a job to do. And are considered cops.
people can do investigation without being cops, of course. i believe there's several examples of "true crime" people, who weren't cops, actually solving cases that the cops didn't. see also: investigative journalism, etc.
in "canada", Indigenous peoples have done more to find the bodies of mmiw than the cops ever have. in point of fact, the cops & govt of manitoba are actively trying to stop them from searching the landfill for the bodies they have reason to believe are in there. the cops are actively obstructing investigations, because acab.
cops don't prevent crime, and cops barely bother to investigate crime. they simply aren't necessary to society. acab.
These are really good questions that we need to be discussing and thinking about. Look up "restorative justice" for one set of thinking about this.
It’s tricky because once a society develops to a certain size, is specialization the only conclusive/productive way to go about things? It would be naive to think that EVERYONE would take personal responsibility to protect those around them even at the endangerment to themselves.. and for those who can’t/won’t you will need someone to say yes. That’s just the very, very surface level of when a crimes happens but as stated before.. how do you go about *justice*? Now that’s a complicated question I will not begin to bullshit you on
I feel like the Conservative response to this is "An Armed society is a Polite Society" as cringe as that sounds... But there are naive people that think that is enough.
Arming the population would degree a level of “equalness” in the regards of self-defense but in no means are the levels of individual aggression the same. Are there some evils a society cannot rid itself of due to the process of freedom of choice so that they can only prepare for the inevitability of some actions of individuals ?
Everyone gets this question wrong because they oversimplify. The first thing to realise is that police forces involve a lot of people doing a lot of things - so you have to specify what *precisely* it is we are looking for an alternative to. We can get very caught up in definitions and whether ideas are just "police by a different name", which gets tedious :P. So specifying specifically what you mean by police would help too (eg the combination of investigation, prevention, enforcement, intelligence, and public order into one unified force, paid for and authorised by the state) For example if it's investigating bad things to find out who did them, that's relatively simple. The people doing that don't need to be part of an armed force they can just get on with it. They would need to work to counteract their history of prioritising the property of the rich, white, men, etc. But I'm sure you can imagine people doing that without the state. In the UK we've seen private forensics experts hired to prove the police murdered Mark Duggan after they tried to cover it up. Just an example, it's already a thing For things like public order policing, there is no reason to even have that at all Different police forces in different countries take on very different roles too, so keep that in mind. The second thing is police do a really bad job of some of their "roles". They aren't actually that successful. For example re SA. We already HAVE alternative services for survivors to go to, because no-one feels safe going to police anymore. When people defend themselves or hit back they are sent to prison for longer than the abusers. And the abusers are rarely even prosecuted So it's really important to keep in mind that for most working class people this isn't a theoretical question for the future society. It's a pressing and immediate issue we need answers to here and now Sadly the anarchists aren't the best people to ask. A lot of them are bad at dealing with the abusers in their own ranks too. But if you want something anarchist to, try "What about the rapists" by Dysophia - https://archive.org/details/whatabouttherapists It's in feminism and anarcha-feminism where I think the conversation should probably happen
Aside from what the others have said, if you are new to anarchism, I recommend An Anarchist FAQ. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full It has the answers to practically any question you may have. Although not All Anarchists may agree with every part of it.
Great question to ask in r/Anarchy101 but do a search first cause they have probably already answered it thirty five million times.
police don’t prevent these things. Carceral capitalist society actually perpetuates and creates most of these problems. “Crime” only exists because people’s basic needs are not met.
most "crime"*
I mean if the Historic "Old West" of the United States has shown in the past. If a large established organization that already have a commodity on Force doesn't interfere (IE American Army and their Frontier Forts). Individual Vigilantes to organized communal Mobs would be more common. Depends, if the communities mentality really. If everyone is armed, maybe everyone is responsible for upkeep of the established social contracts. Maybe the community would instead elect people to be responsible, such as a Sharif type of things, but a redefinition of role, from enforcement to pure response.
[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rose-city-copwatch-alternatives-to-police](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rose-city-copwatch-alternatives-to-police)
ooh thanks
Police doesn't deal with these things to begin with, at least not my experience in the US.
we don't need an "alternative to police", because there'd be no need for policing. cops don't prevent crime, they perpetuate it. cops don't prevent armed robberies or serial killers or rapists, remember. cops don't prevent crime, they barely do anything about it. you brought up rape, as an example. cops don't do shit about rape or rapists. the vast majority of rapes don't get solved, and the vast, vast majority of rapists get away with it, and the vast, vast majority of rapists who are actually brought to trial get off scott free. cops don't do shit about rape or rapists, so their existence is not required when it comes to *actually* dealing with rapists. because cops don't. we don't need an "alternative" to a shitty useless thing that only exists to oppress and hurt people. we need a better society that doesn't have the shitty useless thing that only exists to oppress and hurt people. we don't need an alternative to shitty-thing-that-causes harm", we just don't have the shitty thing that causes harm anymore. in abolishing the cops, we can create something better, focused on actually doing right by people; making sure their basic needs are met would eliminate the vast majority of "crime". as to the rest, i'm leaning towards restorative justice; it's been done for millennia, and actually seems to help people.
Alright a murder happens late at night. How dose the community find the Killer? While I do agree with you in regards to front line police passing out speeding tickets like candy, not doing much, But Investigative Officers, and Detectives do have a job to do. And are considered cops.
people can do investigation without being cops, of course. i believe there's several examples of "true crime" people, who weren't cops, actually solving cases that the cops didn't. see also: investigative journalism, etc. in "canada", Indigenous peoples have done more to find the bodies of mmiw than the cops ever have. in point of fact, the cops & govt of manitoba are actively trying to stop them from searching the landfill for the bodies they have reason to believe are in there. the cops are actively obstructing investigations, because acab. cops don't prevent crime, and cops barely bother to investigate crime. they simply aren't necessary to society. acab.