All these memes about less taxes, cutting taxes, no new taxes

That bandaid is going to have to be pulled, sooner or later.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH.

So you'd rather keep jailing young people to protect the jobs of a buncha pigs? Fire them. Let them starve on the streets. What's the problem?

If they act restless, have them put down. *shrugs*.

Pigs's job is to harass random folks and deprive them of their rights. Why should I be concerned about the well-being of a pig? Their job forfeits any right to human dignity they might have had in the past.

As for the convicts, they deserve REPARATIONS. The War on Drugs has been a monstrous injustice. I'd support seizing the narcs's property and giving it to the junkies.

edited 28th Feb '11 1:31:20 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

That sentiment... gives me pause. You do realize that the "pigs" are people, like you, who mostly wish to get money for protecting people. You can't simply "remove" social problems! The main reason why many prisoners have turned to crime is to try to provide for themselves and their families while faced with no job prospects. In Compton, the police are shot at anytime they fly over. They prolong their lives by getting the death sentence. What needs to be done is try to make more jobs which can actually sustain people rather than just force out a shit ton of convicted criminals onto the general public. Take away the cause of the problem, I agree, and you will take away the need for the jails and police, but crime won't magically disappear by removing the jails and police. If anything, chaos would ensue.

Also, Police are there not only to harass people but TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE AND INVESTIGATE CRIMES. and either you seriously believe that police are a malignant force keeping people down or you are a troll.

edited 28th Feb '11 1:24:46 AM by Enkufka

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

They are a malignant force. I seriously believe it.

But let's not stray off topic. The War on Drugs is expensive. It's a waste of time, and an encroachment on civil liberty. Let's start to balance the budget by ending it wholesale and without reservations.

I'm not saying "fire all police officers". I'm saying "fire all narcs."

edited 28th Feb '11 1:33:28 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

*casts Summon Barkey* Quick, police officer Barkey, it's someone who needs to be repressed!

I don't want to continue to jail people; I object to your naive idea that snapping your fingers and undoing it all tomorrow will be an immediate improvement. The drug laws should be changed, but in a manner that is actually going to help not only the people convicted but their future neighbors and coworkers.

Police officers are no more Complete Monsters than members of the military or the Salvation Army. They are, mostly, real people doing their job to the best of their ability. Some, maybe even most, of them probably don't like the situation with drug laws any more than you do, but they're not the ones placing these laws in place.

You leave me wondering if you've ever had any sort of positive interaction with law enforcement.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Should an injustice continue to protect stability? I oppose that notion. If it IS unjust, shut it down and let the chips fall wherever they may.

I don't believe there's such thing as "positive interaction" with law enforcement. The only interaction I've ever had with these guys is "I'm not going to answer any questions, I am not consenting to any searches and seizures, and I won't say anything else at all. Am I free to go?". Repeat "Am I free to go?" ad nauseam.

Still, let's make a proper thread about that and stop derailing this.

edited 28th Feb '11 1:45:46 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Power-mad police officers does not a fundamentally flawed institution make. What you have experienced is a bad execution of a good concept.

Unless you seriously believe police should not exist at all, then I'd like to see you find a totally lawless area in this world that isn't totally screwed up, past or present.

Not that sure it's a good concept. Something that is expensive and intrusive upon personal liberty is a fundamentally flawed idea. They're a waste of money and a threat to civil liberty. Defunding the cops would be fiscally responsible.

As long as there is waste, raising taxes is unethical. The war on vice is a massive waste of resources. After it's fixed (and other similarly wasteful programs are axed too) we can speak 'bout taxes.

edited 28th Feb '11 4:23:58 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

OK. It must be nice to live in a world where we don't have to deal that pesky little thing called "crime". And you did not cite any example of a functioning policeless society.

edited 28th Feb '11 5:14:51 AM by Exploder

Police is an 19th century invention. Most societies that funcitoned before the 19th century didn't have police.

edited 28th Feb '11 5:37:57 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Are you a sockpuppet?

I think troll is more accurate.

Fight smart, not fair.

No, they didn't. They just had things like knights, guards, soldiers, etc. You know, police under a different name with a different uniform but doing the same exact job.

EDIT: Removed part of my post to avoid flame baiting.

edited 28th Feb '11 7:08:45 AM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Not the same thing. Guards, knights, soldiers... They were mostly there to extract revenue and keep the king in power, not to enforce laws.

Apples and oranges here.

I do seriously believe the police should be abolished. That's only trolling if you're pro-cop.

edited 28th Feb '11 7:01:22 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I'm pretty sure you're talking about the tax collectors (who would be related to the topic at hand), not the law upholders.

That's great, but what about the topic about taxes?

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

If government is a legalized crime racket, taxation is legalized theft/extortion/"protection".

Enjoy the Inferno...

I fully concur.

Government is merely a glorified extortion racket.

Unlike regular extortion rackets, they're not content with looting your stuff. To add insult to injury, they also impose arbitrary and restrictive rules.

edited 28th Feb '11 7:32:27 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

But is that crime racket treating me in a manner that I consider fair and is it actually protecting me? If so, then it's a good crime racket, and if the people under that crime racket support it, it's a government of sorts, if not at least some beneficial organization.

edited 28th Feb '11 7:34:35 AM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

The concept of the social contract is the reason for most things. We give up a portion of our resources in an agreed upon manner to receive services of another agreed upon manner. It's not really a matter of choice (since deciding where you are born is a tad difficult) but it is better than the total lack of choice we had before.

You pay taxes, you get services.

If you don't want to pay taxes, then you should immediately begin a revolt and expect the society to attack you.

That being said, the more sensible approach to anything about society is to not get caught up in pointless ideology and actually try to fix problems. If there is waste, you eliminate the waste. If you need more tax revenue, then you raise taxes. If there are services better run by the government, then you run it through state/crown corporations or directly through the bureaucracy. If you can streamline services you do so. If you can implement strong oversight to reduce corruption and waste then you do so.

There is no need for "I WON'T PAY A DIME OF TAXES UNTIL ... ABORTION IS GONE!" or whatever. It's not helpful to the discussion and polluting American politics with that type of antagonistic rhetoric ruins the chance to fix anything.

edited 28th Feb '11 7:35:28 AM by breadloaf

Actually raising taxes is not necessarily the answer since due to something called dead weight. Essentially the higher the tax, the less people spend in the economy. This means after a while, if taxes are too high, the normal economy will grind to a halt, the black market will grow, and the government is in deeper.

Let's just say that governments don't make money that quickly no matter what they do.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Savage Heathen, you are correct that dismantling the narcotics agencies of this country and ending the war of drugs would have substantial social and economic benefits so much so that it would invalidate the need for any new taxes. But you frothing dislike of the concept of police is so crazy it is almost hard to take seriously. Police aren't a nineteenth century invention. They have existed in one form or another since the concept of law. If you took away the police we would create something that is the police in all but name almost instantaneously.

It wouldn't be "police in all but name".

Instead of having an agency capable of enforcing The Law (as dictated by the government) on the People, we could have the people take care of their own protection. Probably through some form of volunteer, non-authoritarian militia.

The militia's sole function would be to deter and brutally retaliate against aggression, while ignoring all other forms of vice or unsavoryness.

If sufficient mistrust towards authority could be fostered on the people, we'd be safe from tyranny: would-be rulers could be simply shot on sight. No need for the thugs in blue at all.

But it's a derail, and I don't want to derail the thread.

Perhaps a compromise could be reached, sacking only the narcs and most jailers, while leaving Homicide Depts and such in place? Firing ALL cops right now would be excessive. We'd have to fire MOST, though . Without ever hiring any new cop, we could transition to a cop-less, government-less, non authoritarian society.

Trying to get the sheeple to take care of their own protection right now would be foolish, but if they know there'll be no cops in ten years, they would prepare.

Did I mention it'd do wonders for the budget?

edited 28th Feb '11 8:08:31 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

The Thirteen Colonies had something like that, called the Minute Men (armed men, ready at a minute's notice to fight off criminals and those dastardly British and those loyal to those dastardly British). They were unrelated to the government for a while... but it was eventually cheaper and easier to coordinate if they joined the rebel army.

On that topic, who's going to fund the Minute Men who don't work for the government? The town that they protect? But isn't that just another tax?

edited 28th Feb '11 8:21:33 AM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Savage, Specialization is the fundamental principle behind modern society. You idea has at least seven gaping flaws. First is assumes a degree of self motivation that doesn't exist. Second it assumes a neutrality of people involved in their own affairs that will not exist (leading to selective justice which is the same as no justice). Third it will provoke fragmentation and inefficiency. Fourth there is a degree of specialized training that is required to be a cop of any type that will be a undue burden on people who are specialized to other things. Fifth without call volume and an assigned jurisdiction you will create a bunch of incompetents. Sixth your idea would fail with volume any dense urban area would by the logistical realities involve fail if everyone was looking to their defense. Seventh, your idea is essentially the end of civilization, any country that adopts it will become essentially tribal. That does not end well.