Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

Impersonating a police officer is against the law in my country, Canada. But a lawyer recently told me that the police had the right to lie to me. A police officer has the right to pretend not being a police officer. This means (my conclusion) I have no right to know who a police officer is.

Isn't there a contradiction there?

If I have no right to know who is a police officer, how can I commit the crime of impersonating one? If I do decide to impersonate a police officer, wouldn't that mean I'm impersonating an actor? You can't outlaw that.

I would think that anytime someone intervenes in dangerous situation in good faith for peaceful purpose, for the overall good of the community, then that person has in fact impersonated a police officer, or committed a crime.

Apparently, there is an armed group of people in our society which is connected to politicians and tax collectors who want you to think that they are the police while at the same time being in fact official liars and impersonators. To me, this is a form of impersonation of the police. At least, an impersonation of my ideal concept of what the police should be. Does anyone here feel the same way I do?
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
ToBeAwakened
Posts: 5
Joined: February 20th, 2015, 12:54 am

Re: Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

Post by ToBeAwakened »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:Impersonating a police officer is against the law in my country, Canada. But a lawyer recently told me that the police had the right to lie to me. A police officer has the right to pretend not being a police officer. This means (my conclusion) I have no right to know who a police officer is.

Isn't there a contradiction there?

If I have no right to know who is a police officer, how can I commit the crime of impersonating one? If I do decide to impersonate a police officer, wouldn't that mean I'm impersonating an actor? You can't outlaw that.

I would think that anytime someone intervenes in dangerous situation in good faith for peaceful purpose, for the overall good of the community, then that person has in fact impersonated a police officer, or committed a crime.

Apparently, there is an armed group of people in our society which is connected to politicians and tax collectors who want you to think that they are the police while at the same time being in fact official liars and impersonators. To me, this is a form of impersonation of the police. At least, an impersonation of my ideal concept of what the police should be. Does anyone here feel the same way I do?
The job of a police officer is to maintain public order by "whatever means necessary under the law," which in this case include lying to you, and is legal so long as it is done for maintaining public order purposes. On the other hand, your action, that of impersonating a police officer, for whatever "good" reasons you think you have, if allowed en masse will lead to public disorder. Imagine the chaos that will ensue when everyone starts to impersonate police officer. It is for this reason that no exception can be, should be, and will be allowed.
Harbal
Posts: 1532
Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

Post by Harbal »

You can't logic your way round it. You are dealing with the law and the law says there is such a thing as a police officer and you are not allowed to try and give the impression you are one if you are not one. That is the law. You may think it is a bad law but in principle it is no different to any other law, it is a rule that you can be penalised for breaking. Just out of interest, why do you want to be allowed to impersonate a police officer?
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

Post by LuckyR »

Surely the OP must understand the reasoning for not impersonating a police officer. He must therefore be having trouble with the police working undercover, ie not having to admit to being a police officer.

How does the OP propose the police enforce the law against closed crime groups who only reveal their illegal behavior to one another?
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

ToBeAwakened wrote:
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:Impersonating a police officer is against the law in my country, Canada. But a lawyer recently told me that the police had the right to lie to me. A police officer has the right to pretend not being a police officer. This means (my conclusion) I have no right to know who a police officer is.

Isn't there a contradiction there?

If I have no right to know who is a police officer, how can I commit the crime of impersonating one? If I do decide to impersonate a police officer, wouldn't that mean I'm impersonating an actor? You can't outlaw that.

I would think that anytime someone intervenes in dangerous situation in good faith for peaceful purpose, for the overall good of the community, then that person has in fact impersonated a police officer, or committed a crime.

Apparently, there is an armed group of people in our society which is connected to politicians and tax collectors who want you to think that they are the police while at the same time being in fact official liars and impersonators. To me, this is a form of impersonation of the police. At least, an impersonation of my ideal concept of what the police should be. Does anyone here feel the same way I do?
The job of a police officer is to maintain public order by "whatever means necessary under the law," which in this case include lying to you, and is legal so long as it is done for maintaining public order purposes. On the other hand, your action, that of impersonating a police officer, for whatever "good" reasons you think you have, if allowed en masse will lead to public disorder. Imagine the chaos that will ensue when everyone starts to impersonate police officer. It is for this reason that no exception can be, should be, and will be allowed.
Well, my question to you tobeawakened is this, if you have no right to know who a police officer is, how can you claim to know what his or her job is? Also, are you implying that it is against the law for a police officer to lie in some circumstances? Maybe we're from a different country. I'm moving to yours! :lol:

I can see that if everyone had the same rights as police officers do (the imitator police type that we now have), there would be security concerns, but this can be addressed, through education, I would believe. Policing can take a variety of forms to achieve public order. Let's use our civil brains and do a better job at it; let's not try to imitate these strangers as they aren't the role model that some people think that they are.

The implications of not being allowed to impersonate a police officer are substantial too, in case you didn't know: There are nuclear weapons aimed at me right now! What's your police doing against that? I'm certainly not that dangerous a person that such weapons must be made for me. But there is no indication that our cops, who ever they are, are concerned by this huge security issue.

I don't feel more secure as you increase the strength and numbers of weaponry that can be possibly pointed at me on short notice. But this is what happens when you do not take responsibility for your own security but leave it in the hands of apparently more powerful strangers who's biggest duty involves acting like bed bugs while spreading propaganda suggesting that they do something useful and indispensable.

Civil security issues have to be left into civil hands to serve civil goals. The law that makes it illegal for you to pretend to act as the police certainly dis-empower us along with the civil society to which I belong. It makes the civil society to which I belong more vulnerable as a whole.

In my opinion, this law against police impersonation specifically prevents us from taking responsibility where we must have that responsibility. Does anyone shares the way I feel about this?
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
Harbal
Posts: 1532
Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

Post by Harbal »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:There are nuclear weapons aimed at me right now!
I wonder If you could give me some idea where you live so I don't inadvertently come anywhere near you.
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

Harbal wrote:
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:There are nuclear weapons aimed at me right now!
I wonder If you could give me some idea where you live so I don't inadvertently come anywhere near you.
That's a good one. I now see your point!
Last edited by Empiricist-Bruno on February 23rd, 2015, 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
Harbal
Posts: 1532
Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

Post by Harbal »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: Can you please plug that loophole for me?
Certainly not, I hardly know you.
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

LuckyR wrote:Surely the OP must understand the reasoning for not impersonating a police officer. He must therefore be having trouble with the police working undercover, ie not having to admit to being a police officer.

How does the OP propose the police enforce the law against closed crime groups who only reveal their illegal behavior to one another?
Thanks for the comment. I'm arguing that policing, when done in conjunction with a law against police impersonation, creates job opportunities for bed bugs with good public deception skills.

I would believe that the main reason you have no right to know who is a cop is that if you were to find out who they are, you would likely find out that they are bed bugs with good public deception skills.

Now, since bed bugs generally don't like to be found, they agree and cheer up laws that give you no right to know them. And now these bed bugs (not that I know them all as bed bug: it's only my insight) are cheering you as you don't seem to understand that you have accepted their propaganda, the necessity for them to deny you the right to know them.

The reason they claim to need this right to come to you as stranger has nothing to do with facilitating the apprehension of criminals. That is just part of their effective public deception propaganda.

I would also suggest that you cannot ask the question, "How does the OP propose the police enforce the law against closed crime groups who only reveal their illegal behavior to one another?" without the assumption that you or I know the police.

But remember, you have no right to know who they are. Therefore, it seems to me that anyone who would support the right of the police to lie to you about their identities, cannot know what they support since they have no right to know who they support. In my opinion, that sort of mental confusion is welcomed and fostered by bed bugs with effective public deception skills. Lies baffles brains. I'm suggesting that a self-policing civil movement replaces all of them.

It is through the actions of a person that I recognize anyone as the police, not by what a person wears. I recently was stopped by what looked like a bed bug guy who wanted me to think of him as the police (a psycho, if you ask me). Now instead of informing me why I was being stopped on the road, he just asked me about what I did for a living. I just ignored his inappropriate line of questioning. Obviously, I didn't recognize him as the police for he was not. At that point, he just started talking to me in a condescending manner. The best thing to do against this is simply to walk away from such a psychotic behavior, and not to let him spread is bad mood all over me. I was under verbal assault. But because the public recognize such bed bug guys as saviors, (thanks to media outlet for helping them spread this deceptive message) I have to go by rules and take on his garbage. Otherwise, the public would gang up against me too.

It's time to do ourselves what we can do much better by ourselves; if we can take charge of our own safety, then we may also be able to take care of our environment better as well. I would dare to suggest that we should stop relying on bed bugs with effective public deception skills for our own safety! I would suggest that it is not possible to support lying strangers without being tainted one's self in the process.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

Post by LuckyR »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: Thanks for the comment. I'm arguing that policing, when done in conjunction with a law against police impersonation, creates job opportunities for bed bugs with good public deception skills.

I would believe that the main reason you have no right to know who is a cop is that if you were to find out who they are, you would likely find out that they are bed bugs with good public deception skills.

Now, since bed bugs generally don't like to be found, they agree and cheer up laws that give you no right to know them. And now these bed bugs (not that I know them all as bed bug: it's only my insight) are cheering you as you don't seem to understand that you have accepted their propaganda, the necessity for them to deny you the right to know them.

The reason they claim to need this right to come to you as stranger has nothing to do with facilitating the apprehension of criminals. That is just part of their effective public deception propaganda.

I would also suggest that you cannot ask the question, "How does the OP propose the police enforce the law against closed crime groups who only reveal their illegal behavior to one another?" without the assumption that you or I know the police.

But remember, you have no right to know who they are. Therefore, it seems to me that anyone who would support the right of the police to lie to you about their identities, cannot know what they support since they have no right to know who they support. In my opinion, that sort of mental confusion is welcomed and fostered by bed bugs with effective public deception skills. Lies baffles brains. I'm suggesting that a self-policing civil movement replaces all of them.

It is through the actions of a person that I recognize anyone as the police, not by what a person wears. I recently was stopped by what looked like a bed bug guy who wanted me to think of him as the police (a psycho, if you ask me). Now instead of informing me why I was being stopped on the road, he just asked me about what I did for a living. I just ignored his inappropriate line of questioning. Obviously, I didn't recognize him as the police for he was not. At that point, he just started talking to me in a condescending manner. The best thing to do against this is simply to walk away from such a psychotic behavior, and not to let him spread is bad mood all over me. I was under verbal assault. But because the public recognize such bed bug guys as saviors, (thanks to media outlet for helping them spread this deceptive message) I have to go by rules and take on his garbage. Otherwise, the public would gang up against me too.

It's time to do ourselves what we can do much better by ourselves; if we can take charge of our own safety, then we may also be able to take care of our environment better as well. I would dare to suggest that we should stop relying on bed bugs with effective public deception skills for our own safety! I would suggest that it is not possible to support lying strangers without being tainted one's self in the process.

Clearly you have an axe to grind. Why be so cagey? There must be an event or events that changed the general topic of policing to a single issue one for you. Don't worry, plenty of folks, I being one of them, would be delighted to discuss this event/issue with you in detail, just let us know what it is.

Moving on: you probably can't name another job where at the simplest glance a citizen can identify the job of a person easier than a police officer, what with the goofy car color schemes, blue uniforms and all. So everyone knows who the police are, the system is designed that way.

The one exception to the above would be plainclothes/undercover officers. This is a small fraction of the total police force. I'll take the fact you dodged my question: "How does the OP propose the police enforce the law against closed crime groups who only reveal their illegal behavior to one another?" as an admission that you have no viable answer.

Speaking of local (not Federal) undercover officers, if you are a subject of their investigations, most people are going to need a lot more of a rationale for being overly worried about your wellbeing (compared to the community's) than the complete lack of information in your post.

Other issues: what exactly would a person (you?) do with the additional information of knowing who the local plainclothes officers are? The only thing I could see doing differently would be not talking about illegal activity, since they could arrest you for it. Not exactly a problem that most citizens would be sympathetic towards.

Lastly, please provide a real world example of "a self-policing civil movement".
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

LuckyR wrote: Lastly, please provide a real world example of "a self-policing civil movement".
Lucky R, do you realize that you are now expressing interest in knowing more about self-policing? I wish to commend you for your interest in this. If you do not find what you want in my reply then by all means keep looking in that direction from other sources. Your safety (and mine) depends on this. Now, before I do provide you with a real world example of a self-policing civil movement, I must tell you that this, as far as I know does not actually exist anywhere right now in human societies as far as I know. It is an ideal toward which I feel we must direct ourselves. Now, if I were to paint the whole picture and say, this is it, this is the answer and all must do it this way from now on, well I would be a dictator and I would need the help of many armed bed bugs with public deception skills to try and make a doomed plan a reality. No, the self-policing civil movement I'm talking about will be the result of collective individual actions and dreams. This means I can't paint it all for you and say, this is it. To do this painting, your input and that of others (those others who feel that 11000KG of TNT kept in store per person is a crime against humanity) is a necessity.
LuckyR wrote:…you probably can't name another job where at the simplest glance a citizen can identify the job of a person easier than a police officer, what with the goofy car color schemes, blue uniforms and all. So everyone knows who the police are, the system is designed that way."
This statement suggests that we all know who the police is but...it does not take into account the reality of police impersonators. Your statement suggest that someone who is impersonating the police is the police. Why? Because you recognize the impersonator as the police. Now, tell me, how can you tell the difference between a police officer and a police impersonator? Is there a difference? There must be a difference otherwise there would not be a law against them or you couldn't have a law against them because they're identical. So what's the difference? How can I tell this difference? How can any member of the public tell this difference? I would argue that we can't and this is consistent with my assertion that we have no right to know who a police officer is. Generally, we simply don't know who those who want us to think of them as the police are.
LuckyR wrote: Speaking of local (not Federal) undercover officers, if you are a subject of their investigations,…
Thanks for suggesting that I may be a subject of a Federal Investigation. It makes me feel newsworthy. By the way, do you know where Toronto is located?
LuckyR wrote:Other issues: what exactly would a person (you?) do with the additional information of knowing who the local plainclothes officers are?
Have I expressed any interest in this information? Why do you ask? What are you thinking? I have no interest in knowing any armed bed bug with public deception skills. Now having said that, I'd like to add that with the knowledge of who is responsible for our safety would comes their accountability. I don't think they can or want to be made accountable. (Heck, here, in Toronto, Police Chief Bill Blair is known to have spread a false message publicly at the G-X summet and he still has his job.) I really think the future is in civil movements that are self-policing.
LuckyR wrote: I'll take the fact you dodged my question: "How does the OP propose the police enforce the law against closed crime groups who only reveal their illegal behavior to one another?" as an admission that you have no viable answer.
That's an interesting statement. I argue that we can't know the police and therefore your question is not grounded in worldly matters. It is a hypothetical question,"If we knew who the police was,..How does ..." but we don't. I think my point must be answered before your question can make sense. To your credit, you did attempt to answer my point but as I'm showing to you in this post, I am not satisfied by your argument.
LuckyR wrote: There must be an event or events that changed the general topic of policing to a single issue one for you. Don't worry, plenty of folks, I being one of them, would be delighted to discuss this event/issue with you in detail, just let us know what it is.
I'm first an environmental activist and I’m particularly interested in the protection of wilderness areas, such as Provincial, National Parks (Mother Nature to me). Many of these nature reserves are now under ecological assault by the very people in charge of protecting it. Deer, Cormorants and now more recently wolves are being killed by park managers to "restore the ecological order of things (green a park)" What they are actually doing is creating an ecological police where none is needed. They are creating a job, inventing a need and bad elements that must be controlled artificially so that it justifies their jobs and secures the tax dollars funding for their activities. Also, if the park becomes good looking, they take the credit for that.

Now, given that I'm interested in this, I think about how did this absurdity became a reality? How can people not see the scam that is going on? And I think, and I think. Finally, I realize that the same kind of scam is ongoing all across the world; it is not just something that is happening in parks, this goes on in all human societies that are policed by strangers. I also realize that if I want to put an end to the scams in the parks, (for Mother Nature) I've got to first undermine the root of it all in human societies. Deer or wolves can't kick out encroaching park managers and do self-policing. Whether a self-policing civil movement can foster the political will needed to get rid of armed bed bugs with public deceptions skills is not as clear: maybe it is possible. I'm all in favor of going that way. I do not like to trust people I don't know for my safety; I do not want to trust people I do not know for my safety and would suggest that it is in the public’s interest to feel the same way I do.

I hope this answers your questions to your satisfaction and please do feel free to ask some more. Does anyone else has any comment? Who wants to team up with me? Let's form a committee to study this?

I would certainly welcome worried undercover strangers to join in! I've heard of the tendency of bed bugs with public's deception's skill to infiltrate environmental groups by speaking out against their own... So, I'm certainly not telling anyone I'm not the police; you never know... I've been recently suspected of being an undercover officer...and that wasn't the first time... I'll certain keep in mind to protect you as best I can against this ominous possibility.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

Post by LuckyR »

Wow, I have to say I am impressed with the density of ideas to words you are able to amass.

Let me paraphrase as brevity is a virtue I find practical.

Your ideal (self policing) is just that, an ideal that we agree has no current practical application. Which begs the question, do you have any practical alternative to the idea of a police force (until self policing is perfected and rolled out to the masses)? As an aside I am stipulating that there is such a thing as crime, that we agree should be investigated and minimized, feel free to disagree.

You seem to be stressing the point that the only thing standing in the way of knowing who the true police are (for what ends is still a mystery), is that pesky group of police impersonators. Luckily for you, as you started the OP, the government is doing it's best to minimize the impact of these impersonators by making their activities illegal. I am assuming you are in complete agreement and this fact is giving you some comfort that we are heading in the right direction.

Well, I am no geographer, but my understanding is Toronto is located under the jurisdiction of the Mounties, you know the Federal Police of Canada. Who, by the way have very distinctive uniforms, which makes identifying them pretty easy, except at costume parties...

First you want to know who the police are, and since the only one's who are difficult to figure out for the sighted, would be plainclothes and in the next post you don't care. Please choose, since trying to nail your jello to the wall is tedious.

If fighting crime is not a priority to you, that's ok, but on a topic like the one you started, you should state it from the start to make the conversation more efficient.

I get your environmental comments. I would suggest, though that although the rangers/park managers are walking around and doing the dirty work, that for the special case of parks (as opposed to cities) the real source of the problem you're trying to combat are the policy makers, not the boots on the ground. Or to put it another way, you could have the same rangers with a different policy doing a very different thing, probably something you might agree with.

As far as cities and their police, it all depends whether or not you personally see much fallout from crime. If you don't, then the police are there to hassle you and give out annoying tickets. If you experience crime, then police can also be a force for an improvement in your situation, not that they are all good, no one believes that, but their reson for existance becomes clearer.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

LuckyR wrote:Wow, I have to say I am impressed with the density of ideas to words you are able to amass.
I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.

LuckyR wrote:Your ideal (self policing) is just that, an ideal that we agree has no current practical application. Which begs the question, do you have any practical alternative to the idea of a police force (until self policing is perfected and rolled out to the masses)?
But LuckyR, how does the idea of a police force has practical applications? I'm not sure I can answer this question.

LuckyR wrote: As an aside I am stipulating that there is such a thing as crime, that we agree should be investigated and minimized, feel free to disagree.
You are touching on an important point here. Say the crime is that of black slaves escaping from forced labor at a time when slavery was legal... Where is the crime there? I'm suggesting we're experiencing a similar situation. Can you tell me why there is 11000 tons of TNT of explosive kept, per person, for someone's safety here on this planet? I'm suggesting self-policing couldn't lead to such a crime... but you are right: that isn't a crime at the moment. I guess this is just an important aside...
LuckyR wrote:You seem to be stressing the point that the only thing standing in the way of knowing who the true police are (for what ends is still a mystery), is that pesky group of police impersonators. Luckily for you, as you started the OP, the government is doing it's best to minimize the impact of these impersonators by making their activities illegal. I am assuming you are in complete agreement and this fact is giving you some comfort that we are heading in the right direction.
Without laws, how is there any crime? The creation of laws is not in response to crime it is simply meant to criminalize certain things, people or behaviors. If you are serious about eliminating crime, you eliminate laws. I'm not sure I'm in favor of this. Governments are in the public relation business and they fully support your bed bug's public deceptions. How different they are from the bed bugs they appear to use is tricky to say; they are certainly partners.
LuckyR wrote:Well, I am no geographer, but my understanding is Toronto is located under the jurisdiction of the Mounties, you know the Federal Police of Canada. Who, by the way have very distinctive uniforms, which makes identifying them pretty easy, except at costume parties...
I've never been stopped by any bed bug looking like a Mountie and lived in Canada many many years. Maybe they exist only as tourist attractions?
LuckyR wrote:First you want to know who the police are, and since the only one's who are difficult to figure out for the sighted, would be plainclothes and in the next post you don't care. Please choose, since trying to nail your jello to the wall is tedious.
I think you've simply missed the point I was trying to make. I was pointing out how strange the police was and in the process, I've apparently become a Jello maker to you. Ho well... I'm not sure what to say. There are obviously two notions of police that we've been talking about. The media, political, self-appointed police and the ideal police that works in the interest of the community it patrols and is an integral member of the community. I guess that sorting them out is no easy task; when you do mix the two, you indeed end up with Jello or cheese cake.
LuckyR wrote:If fighting crime is not a priority to you, that's ok, but on a topic like the one you started, you should state it from the start to make the conversation more efficient.
I'm not sure I understand how the conversation would be more efficient. Fighting crime is a priority for those who create it, namely the politicians with their laws. I don't create much crime and so I have little to fight against. I'm not sure this is very relevant to this thread.
LuckyR wrote:I get your environmental comments. I would suggest, though that although the rangers/park managers are walking around and doing the dirty work, that for the special case of parks (as opposed to cities) the real source of the problem you're trying to combat are the policy makers, not the boots on the ground. Or to put it another way, you could have the same rangers with a different policy doing a very different thing, probably something you might agree with.
If you play the political game and try to get policy makers to improve things, you run into a lot of opposition. It's really hard and often progress will be erased by the next government. In the meantime, speaking to the policy makes implies that you recognize them. But aren't they an arm of the bed bugs with public deceptions skills? It may be best to view them for what they often really are: pure strangers. Do they have integrity? Do you know?
LuckyR wrote:As far as cities and their police, it all depends whether or not you personally see much fallout from crime. If you don't, then the police are there to hassle you and give out annoying tickets.
Nuclear fallout does matter to me and I do see it coming. I wished that your police worked on my safety by tackling this security issue first.
LuckyR wrote:If you experience crime, then police can also be a force for an improvement in your situation, not that they are all good, no one believes that, but their reson for existance becomes clearer.
Are you assuming that I fail to understand the reason for the existence of police? I think I do understand clearly why bed bugs exist, but that's another subject. If you experience crime, (say your slaves have ran away) then a police officer may be able to bring them back to you. (Except for that bad police officer which lets them get away right?) Some narcissists do believe in and benefit from the law, you know?

The difficulty in opposing bed bugs with public deception skills comes from the fact that they have a vested interest in violent behavior. They make good money out of it. Therefore, they promote their violent technology and welcome more applications for it as it will provide good work for them. Now, all the community is undermined by the accumulation of unprecedented amounts of destructive power but we don't feel it individually, we don't feel it as the bed bugs feel the juice they are sucking out of their tax collector partners. So they get their way. My current thinking is more about expressing the need to remove the self-interest from the political, media, self-appointed police. But this would destroy them wouldn't it?

Right now, I do not recognize as police the bed bugs with public deception skills which the media, public and politicians seem to recognize. Because of this, I realize that in my mind at least, I do live in anarchy. I'm not entirely happy about this because it does nothing to address an issue that I worries me a lot. I feel that something must be done against the accumulation of explosive power and deadly technology. I feel that having a police force that possesses integrity is the first step needed to go in the right direction. I'm just musing here as to which form this police force might take.

One thing I feel strongly about is that by establishing policing as a civil right, we would be going in the right direction. By denying people the right to approach, handle, deadly power to reserve it for the bed bugs with public deceptions skills only, you can almost guarantee that they will use that power for themselves against the rest... and isn't that the root of all evil? Thanks for your interest in this topic.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

Lucylu wrote:
Empiricist- Bruno,

Id have to agree with previous thoughts, that you seem to be extremely idealistic if you think that policing should be completely transparent and that anyone should be able to impersonate a police officer at will. Unfortunately, that just has no real basis in human behaviour.
Lucylu, you know what has real basis in human behavior and what has not? And I appear to you to be extremely idealistic if I think that policing should be completely transparent and a civil right? Hum. It sounds to me like you are attempting to marginalize the great ideas that I bring up. Am I correct or was there another objective to your post?

What can be read between the lines from your comment is the fact that you are fine with living with 11000 tons of TNT per person on Earth. This is acceptable and understandable, given your understanding of what has real basis in human behavior? (By the way, can I investigate that knowledge of yours or is it better kept opaque like some police business?)

I bring up a potential solution to many problems. You reply by apparently suggesting that my ideas are dismissible and offer absolutely nothing to resolve what I believe are serious and real political problems. Perhaps you think that worrying about nuclear attacks/accidents is also something that also has no real basis in human behavior?

Is the dreaming of innovative solutions to problems which do not concern you the act of extreme idealists? Hum. I would conclude here by daring to suggest that you are replying to my posts out of fear. Fear that other people may start to think along the kind of lines that I bring, lines of change. If you were replying out of concern, I believe you would attempt to address my issues but you do not.

I guess I should be happy about this. If I cause fear in you with my ideas, it means that I am armed with at least one good point. I will continue working on it. Thanks.

Someone earlier expressed the fear that if everyone were to do the work of police (the way bed bugs with public deception skills appear to do it) then there would be no more public order. I have to agree with this, and this is why I think it is so important that the police changes its ways so as to make its work within the reach of most people; such work would also have to be much less bent on infusing fear in others to get their way.

I think policing as to evolve to something that most people today would no longer even recognize as policing since policing has regrettably begun to be understood and defined, by a significant number of people, as achieving a certain order through the use of brute force. So long as the public wants to hold on to this definition of policing, I would believe that we can't progress; we're at a dead end.

I think that if policing is to become a civil right, policing as we know it will have to change and the great changes that I envision will not be in a vacuum. It will impact the police's partners: the justice system, the political system, the educational system and the media system. I have in mind widespread systemic changes. But I really think that this can only start when there is a common desire from many people to take responsibility for ones' own security. That perhaps is where I'm going off line. There just hasn't been enough nuclear accidents/wars yet to make this desire grow. Maybe, in a few thousands of years, someone will have more convincing arguments than I do.

Maybe, I should just show indifference to these problems which I can't address on my own anyway, but expressing a desire to address these problems is important to me and that is what I'm doing it here. I do believe in living by principles and I consider them vital and trusting my own security to bed bugs with public deception skills is always going to irritate me. This issue won't go away and since I'm not the only person who thinks ideals are important, there will always be potential for change in this respect. I have no desire to remain quiet on this issue. I have many more ideas to express as to how we should move forward.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
Lucylu
Posts: 676
Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Re: Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

Post by Lucylu »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:It sounds to me like you are attempting to marginalize the great ideas that I bring up. Am I correct or was there another objective to your post?
I was attempting to analyse and debunk the ideas in your post. There was no other motive. Did you have a specific ulterior motive in mind? I think that the police don't necessarily stop negative behaviour (and there is much work to be done in improving the institution of the police) but they do work to break down the infrastructure of professional criminals.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:What can be read between the lines from your comment is the fact that you are fine with living with 11000 tons of TNT per person on Earth. This is acceptable and understandable, given your understanding of what has real basis in human behavior? (By the way, can I investigate that knowledge of yours or is it better kept opaque like some police business?)
I am not 'fine' with living with nuclear weapons, or any weapons (what sane person would be?), but neither am I in denial of their reality. I don't think these things happen on a whim or arbitrarily, or that human beings will somehow miraculously change overnight. The ideal is obvious to all of us, but in my view we have to go through the process before we reach our goal. We cant just wish it to be true and click our heels together. It will take time to gradually improve our perceptions and living conditions before WMDs are no longer needed. They will fall away naturally, not by force.

I actually have enormous faith in human nature, but I am also patient. It seems that the entire world was horrified by the world wars of the last century and the creation of nuclear bombs. Even though we still have them now, and there was much posturing during the Cold War, no one actually wants to go down that road again. And all this, while we are still so primitive and ignorant.

In future, I envisage that we will gradually 'lay down our arms' as we grow in our equality and understanding. I don't think that we will have to go in to full on nuclear war before seeing the light, as you do. I think we have already done that. It just takes time to grow.

However, with regard to policing..take the recent threat of teenagers being groomed over the internet and then joining the Islamic State. This isn't a 'lets all just sit down and have a nice chat over tea and a biscuits' situation. It takes professionals to track and find these people, and yes, it must be covert. Traumas like 9/11 and the London bombings have shown that some people, unfortunately, are not able to think rationally and are full of hate. What we've seen in the West is just the tip of the iceberg.

I applaud your idealism, but I think human nature is not all sweetness and light. The vast majority are good, and we all think we are doing the right thing, but clearly humans are very impressionable, and mental illness is extremely prevalent. People don't kill others just because they are in a bad mood and if the right person said a kind word, they would be able to talk them out of it.

-- Updated March 17th, 2015, 2:14 pm to add the following --

Moreover, with regard to the specifics of impersonating a police officer- I don't think its that far off impersonating a fireman. Yes, we may think we know what to do but the reality is, with the best of intentions, we may actually make the situation worse, and compound things further by also needing to be rescued ourselves.

Professionals, are by definition, aware of the totality of the situation and are not blindly responding to their immediate senses. Being policed does have a negative side, but for the most part, I think that it is necessary to create national or universal legal processes and structures which we all agree to follow. Otherwise, whats to stop anyone going out and killing someone that they think is a paedophile, for instance? The point is we need proof, and for that evidence to be verified by an elected group of experienced, professionals before taking action.

Yes we can technically perform a 'citizens arrest' and we should all help as much as possible, by being a first response to the emergency services, but to think that we can independently act as judge and jury is very dangerous.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021