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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes it is what you said.
You said they’re there to carry out violence on citizens. That’s not what the police are or should be for.
No. You’re again thinking police are violent thugs everywhere.
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.