The morality of being a police officer

[Juan]

Since, I’d say there are rather different ethics to becoming a police officer in say, Cuba, Vietnam or North Korea than there would be in say, Monaco or Hong Kong.

Could you elaborate on that ?

[laminustacitus]

@nirgrahamUK

is there a difference between coercion and violence?

Violence is the tool of coercion, those are definitions that don’t really need an anaylsis.

@nirgrahamUK

if there is not. then i prefer my distinction that leavs violence ambivelent to justice, and coercion the imiplication that the violence is unjust.

Your distinction is redefining english words.

[Juan]

Lam, would you mind providing the name of your political position ? What do you think you are ? A libertarian ? Amoralist ? Religious conservative ? Commie ? What ?

[Praetyre]

@Juan

Since, I’d say there are rather different ethics to becoming a police officer in say, Cuba, Vietnam or North Korea than there would be in say, Monaco or Hong Kong.

Could you elaborate on that ?

Monaco and Hong Kong are, comparatively, much freer countries (well, Hong Kong isn’t a country, but it does have it’s own laws and system of governance) than Cuba, Vietnam or North Korea. The odds of you being asked to do something wrong is higher in a totalitarian government than it is in a freer one. To give you another example, your odds of being ordered to participate in a civilian massacre are a lot lower in, say, the Swiss Army than they would be in something like Milosevic-era Serbia’s army or the Nazi Wehrmacht.

[nirgrahamUK]

@laminustacitus

@nirgrahamUK

@laminustacitus

Without the growing and cooking of foods, society will be at the mercy of hunger. But, of course, in anarcho-capitalist world, the private crop cultivating and food processing firms are so much more productive and accomodating than the members of the Agricultural and Culinary Communist Workers Union despite the fact that they would be of the same people.

wut?

The difference between the two is not the existence of a monopoly, but the introduction of coercion into the transaction. justified coercion is in the transaction of justice in the anarcho-capitalist, whereas the statist vision is characterised by unjustified coercion; hence, the entire strawman falls apart.

wut?

[laminustacitus]

@nirgrahamUK

@laminustacitus

@nirgrahamUK

@laminustacitus

Without the growing and cooking of foods, society will be at the mercy of hunger. But, of course, in anarcho-capitalist world, the private crop cultivating and food processing firms are so much more productive and accomodating than the members of the Agricultural and Culinary Communist Workers Union despite the fact that they would be of the same people.

wut?

The difference between the two is not the existence of a monopoly, but the introduction of coercion into the transaction. justified coercion is in the transaction of justice in the anarcho-capitalist, whereas the statist vision is characterised by unjustified coercion; hence, the entire strawman falls apart.

wut?

You completely side-step the issue of legitimacy, but that is too prickly of a question for most anarcho-capitalists, who live in a black, and white world where “coercion”, and “Self-defense” are two different things defined to bolster their ideology.

[Juan]

What is your ‘ideology’ laminustacitus ?

[nirgrahamUK]

no. the issue, is more simply decided by analysing the part that you preferred to ignore and gave no reason for ignoring. the effects on trade and quality of service of monopoly.

you mocked the idea that police and defence agencies in anarchy could be politer, more responsive to consumer demand ,than police and so-callled defence insitituions under state monopoly , with perverse incentives , shielded from consumer demand. even though everything we know about incentives and the benefits of competative enterprise militate against this.

im sure it was momentarilly fun for you to be flippant. but you did not have your economics hat on when you were (flippant)

[Juan]

Monaco and Hong Kong are, comparatively, much freer countries (well, Hong Kong isn’t a country, but it does have it’s own laws and system of governance) than Cuba, Vietnam or North Korea. The odds of you being asked to do something wrong is higher in a totalitarian government than it is in a freer one.

The US has the highest rate of incarceration on earth…

Does that tell you something ?

You could argue that some governments are worse than others, but the point is that in a given ‘country’ the worst kind of people voluntarily join the police/military/government. So the ethics of being a cop are the same in cuba or the US, IMO.

To give you another example, your odds of being ordered to participate in a civilian massacre are a lot lower in, say, the Swiss Army than they would be in something like Milosevic-era Serbia’s army or the Nazi Wehrmacht.

Hm…

[laminustacitus]

@nirgrahamUK

no. the issue, is more simply decided by analysing the part that you preferred to ignore and gave no reason for ignoring. the effects on trade and quality of service of monopoly.

you mocked the idea that police and defence agencies in anarchy could be politer, more responsive to consumer demand ,than police and so-callled defence insitituions under state monopoly , with perverse incentives , shielded from consumer demand. even though everything we know about incentives and the benefits of competative enterprise militate against this.

im sure it was momentarilly fun for you to be flippant. but you did not have your economics hat on when you were (flippant)

My apologies that the anarcho-capitalist analysis does not realize that there will always be a monopoly on the use of force for such is the human condition for men with guns will not seek cooperation, but rather control, and dominance - that is the fact that you are completely ignorent of. Of course, you then proceed to ficticiously assume that all of a sudden competing defense companies will pop out of nowhere, but without a single word as to how it will happen. Utopian? Absolutely.

Of course, I mock the idea for I don’t think defense companies will compete with one another; rather, I think they will go to war with one another.

[nirgrahamUK]

you can’t distinguish between a man with a gun, that hunts, and seks to defend his self, property, family friends, from aggression.

and man with a gun that is a bully and wants to rape steal and coerce and make war.

that is your problem not mine.

all men with guns are the same according to the doctrine of lam.

…analgously i’m sure i could entice juan to make some sweeping statements about all christians… eh juan ?

[Juan]

Of course, I mock the idea for I don’t think defense companies will compete with one another; rather, I think they will go to war with one another.

lol. Hey lam, can you tell me what your political position is ?

[wilderness]

@laminustacitus

My apologies that the anarcho-capitalist analysis does not realize that there will always be a monopoly on the use of force for such is the human condition for men with guns will not seek cooperation, but rather control, and dominance - that is the fact that you are completely ignorent of.

and just last week or two weeks ago, you were saying we could never know absolutely and here you say always

@laminustacitus

Of course, you then proceed to ficticiously assume that all of a sudden competing defense companies will pop out of nowhere, but without a single word as to how it will happen. Utopian? Absolutely.

You speak in absolutes again, which is the very defining of utopia.

@laminustacitus

Of course, I mock the idea for I don’t think defense companies will compete with one another; rather, I think they will go to war with one another.

of course that’s only your opinion, but then again you deny that you have opinions and deny you have absolute knowledge - or should I say Absolutely.[:^)]

[EternalSanction]

In response to the OP: while most libertarians would consider any current apparatuses of law enforcement to be (at least in part) unjust, some officers truly believe that they are enforcing just laws. Insofar as this is true, they cannot be faulted for their choice of occupation, but rather their perception of justice. In other words, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to criticize them for their morality, but not for picking a job based on said morality.

I feel like I should also mention that I work with local police officers on a daily basis (they work second jobs as security), and I know that a few of them will turn a blind eye to certain “crimes” (for instance, casual marijuana use).

[laminustacitus]

@nirgrahamUK

you can’t distinguish between a man with a gun, that hunts, and seks to defend his self, property, family friends, from aggression.

and man with a gun that is a bully and wants to rape steal and coerce and make war.

It is often the latter that ensures the former never happens, minus the hunting. In addition, the world is not nearly as black, and white as that for that is not ana analysis of the world, rather it is a fanciful view more suited to a non fiction story than anything else.

@nirgrahamUK

all men with guns are the same according to the doctrine of lam.

Never said that once.

@wilderness

@laminustacitus

My apologies that the anarcho-capitalist analysis does not realize that there will always be a monopoly on the use of force for such is the human condition for men with guns will not seek cooperation, but rather control, and dominance - that is the fact that you are completely ignorent of.

and just last week or two weeks ago, you were saying we could never know absolutely and here you say always

Then prove me wrong, there is nothing I love being more than wrong.

@wilderness

@laminustacitus

Of course, you then proceed to ficticiously assume that all of a sudden competing defense companies will pop out of nowhere, but without a single word as to how it will happen. Utopian? Absolutely.

You speak in absolutes again, which is the very defining of utopia.

I don’t see your point here for what I describe I do believe is a very much utopian political view.

@wilderness

@laminustacitus

Of course, I mock the idea for I don’t think defense companies will compete with one another; rather, I think they will go to war with one another.

of course that’s only your opinion, but then again you deny that you have opinions and deny you have absolute knowledge - or should I say Absolutely.

Its an opinion, hence the “I think” - it would be a very sloppy style if it was not a problematic opinion. Again, I would love to be proven wrong, but I do not think I will.

[nirgrahamUK]

@laminustacitus

It is often the latter that ensures the former never happens, minus the hunting. In addition, the world is not nearly as black, and white as that for that is not ana analysis of the world, rather it is a fanciful view more suited to a non fiction story than anything else.

or, in just societies where defence isnt monopolise criminals are marginalised and private citizens are ceteris parabis safer.

@nirgrahamUK

all men with guns are the same according to the doctrine of lam.

@laminustacitus

Never said that once.

@laminustacitus

men with guns will not seek cooperation, but rather control, and dominance

so, i guess you are saying you meant some men with guns…

[wilderness]

@laminustacitus

Then prove me wrong, there is nothing I love being more than wrong.

You’re absolutely wrong - now prove me wrong.

@laminustacitus

I don’t see your point here for what I describe I do believe is a very much utopian political view.

I don’t see your point here either for I believe you speak in perfections of absolutes that don’t change in how utopian politics is currently.

@laminustacitus

Its an opinion, hence the “I think” - it would be a very sloppy style if it was not a problematic opinion. Again, I would love to be proven wrong, but I do not think I will.

You don’t think you will prove you wrong? ok.

[nirgrahamUK]

@laminustacitus

In addition, the world is not nearly as black, and white as that for that is not ana analysis of the world, rather it is a fanciful view more suited to a non fiction story than anything else.

the question was about what you can distinguish between, not about stories and scenarios. there is surely little point in talking about stories if you cant make distinctions between the interesting elements of the stories…

Dear lam, can you distngusish between someone that goes into a shop and steals everything off the shelves from someone that goes into a store and buys things from the merchant. or is that a rather fanciful view more suited to a non-fiction story than anything else?

I hope that you can. in time and with similar mental effort you will distinguish between peaceful men with guns and warlike men with guns…heres hoping

[Laughing_Man]

@laminustacitus

Then prove me wrong, there is nothing I love being more than wrong.

Prove you wrong? About what? That we were having a discuss several weeks ago where I was making the point of being able to predict if a man was willing to defend himself out of self-preservation and you stated that I couldn’t even make that prediction? [By the way, I have been reading up on the ability of predicting the future course of events concerning values and human nature. This wonderful thing called ‘thymology’]

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@fsk

If the good cops get disgusted and leave, then why don’t they form a private police force that competes with the State police monopoly?

Ummm…there’s that last word in your sentence which answers your question.