Comment by quacked
1 day ago
> Do you think every police department in the US oppresses minorities and infringes on civil rights or something?
There are some people who not only believe this but can make very compelling cases that this is the case. It's a dead-end rhetorical argument; yes, it is actually possible for literally every precinct in the US to violate people's civil rights.
The difference is that some people, like (I suspect) the person you're responding to, seem to think that the position itself--armed law enforcement officer--is archetypically immoral and should not exist as a function or profession in a civilization. This is naive to to the point of absurdity and underwrites most of the idiocy that's widely abound in anti-policing movements. In one breath they claim that "police" are as a class immoral, and in the next they proclaim that their political opponents must be "brought to justice" by armed people following a set of written laws. It's absurd!
That strawman isn't particularly pretty, maybe you could put some effort in next time you make one?
To me civilisation isn't an inherently good term, and I'm not a believer in natural or god given hierarchies, or even the state as necessary. On the contrary, I consider the state to be a crime in itself, founded on the threat of violence and by necessity it destroys cooperative forms of social life as a survival tactic.
Using your principles, the only societies possible are pre-industrial, pre-legal societies residing in areas not desired by neighboring states or bands of raiding warriors.
>To me civilisation isn't an inherently good term, and I'm not a believer in natural or god given hierarchies, or even the state as necessary.
You're right. The universe doesn't need us to be living in cities, with indoor plumbing, modern medical care, and iPads, but most people would prefer that to living in the savannah without any of that and a life expectancy of 30 years.
>by necessity it destroys cooperative forms of social life as a survival tactic.
???