• TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Police having monopoly on (legal) violence does not mean the point of them existing is explicitly to terrorise people to the extent people are afraid to call them.

      Only in places where they are allowed to become thugs is that the case.

      • jerkface@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        That’s not what I said. It’s right there on the screen. Neither is it what the article says. I won’t engage with such rhetorical devices that border on sophistry.

        If you have services available other than the police, it is in your interest to prefer those. Societal, it is in our interest to offload non-violent services from the police onto social workers and other non-violent labour.

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          Yes it is what you said.

          The police in all countries exist specifically to do violence against citizens of that country. That is literally their reason for existing.

          You said they’re there to carry out violence on citizens. That’s not what the police are or should be for.

          If you have services available other than the police, it is in your interest to prefer those.

          No. You’re again thinking police are violent thugs everywhere.

          • finderscult@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            18 hours ago

            No, you’re still misunderstanding. Police explicitly exist to do violence on behalf of the state. That is their exclusive function, everywhere, at all times.

            If you do not need violence against your fellow citizens, do not call the police.