NationStates

Mostly yes. A few bad apples do not spoil the bunch.

Emulation White wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:We need police, but we need police reform, and to end civil asset forfeiture abuse.

I keep seeing this "we NEED police". Why do we need police? There is no demonstrable benefit to slightly lower rates of violence. The police only damage natural gene pools by eliminating individuals with different traits and destroying people's self-responsibility and autonomy. Law enforcement is possibly the most unnecessary apparatus ever created.

I don’t think you completely have a grasp on how human genetics work.

Most police officers are generally good people. This is such a stupid question.

Scomagia wrote:

Emulation White wrote:
I keep seeing this "we NEED police". Why do we need police? There is no demonstrable benefit to slightly lower rates of violence. The police only damage natural gene pools by eliminating individuals with different traits and destroying people's self-responsibility and autonomy. Law enforcement is possibly the most unnecessary apparatus ever created.

[Citation needed]

No citation needed. Law enforcement is a eugenic practice that discriminates against certain varities of traits and behaviors, which reduces their availability in the gene pool, thus shrinking it, which in turn, limits the possible spectrum of human variety (personality, skills, perspectives). Of course it destroys self-responsibility, it gives society a lax in self-protection and ability to solve disputes or problems themselves. It destroys autonomy objectively because people targeted by the forces of judiciary genocide are hindered in their choices of economic sufficiency and interactions with society in general.

I would say police are a very mixed bag. On one hand they definitely are needed to help enforce laws and such. But on the other hand they can and on many occasion have been used to uphold harmful laws and their are definitely some bad apples in there. Basically is nothing inherently wrong with police but they can become harmful is part of a bad system.

Emulation White wrote:

Scomagia wrote:[Citation needed]

No citation needed. Law enforcement is a eugenic practice that discriminates against certain varities of traits and behaviors, which reduces their availability in the gene pool, thus shrinking it, which in turn, limits the possible spectrum of human variety (personality, skills, perspectives). Of course it destroys self-responsibility, it gives society a lax in self-protection and ability to solve disputes or problems themselves. It destroys autonomy objectively because people targeted by the forces of judiciary genocide are hindered in their choices of economic sufficiency and interactions with society in general.

Yeah, citations are needed for all of the shit you are saying.

Xmara wrote:Mostly yes. A few bad apples do not spoil the bunch.

Emulation White wrote:
I keep seeing this "we NEED police". Why do we need police? There is no demonstrable benefit to slightly lower rates of violence. The police only damage natural gene pools by eliminating individuals with different traits and destroying people's self-responsibility and autonomy. Law enforcement is possibly the most unnecessary apparatus ever created.

I don’t think you completely have a grasp on how human genetics work.

I do, everything I've stated is basic genetics. The fact that you made no effort to correct my alleged misunderstanding of them is dubious.

Emulation White wrote:

Xmara wrote:Mostly yes. A few bad apples do not spoil the bunch.


I don’t think you completely have a grasp on how human genetics work.

I do, everything I've stated is basic genetics. The fact that you made no effort to correct my alleged misunderstanding of them is dubious.

The fact that you assert, rather than demonstrating, your claims is dubious.

Scomagia wrote:

Emulation White wrote:
No citation needed. Law enforcement is a eugenic practice that discriminates against certain varities of traits and behaviors, which reduces their availability in the gene pool, thus shrinking it, which in turn, limits the possible spectrum of human variety (personality, skills, perspectives). Of course it destroys self-responsibility, it gives society a lax in self-protection and ability to solve disputes or problems themselves. It destroys autonomy objectively because people targeted by the forces of judiciary genocide are hindered in their choices of economic sufficiency and interactions with society in general.

Yeah, citations are needed for all of the shit you are saying.

How? The first section is just genetic selection, a basic, proven concept of evolutionary biology. The latter is just common sense, if you give people the option to defer protecting themselves and solving their problems to others they will not be as autonomous or have as much feeling of responsibility as if they had to do these things themselves. These are not far-fetched conclusions requiring tedious academic taskfinding, they are just established biological and psychological knowledge. I didn't mean to make all those mimic posts, my browser had a moment.

Scomagia wrote:

Emulation White wrote:
I do, everything I've stated is basic genetics. The fact that you made no effort to correct my alleged misunderstanding of them is dubious.

The fact that you assert, rather than demonstrating, your claims is dubious.

Here is for both of you:

https://biologydictionary.net/directional-selection/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology

Emulation White wrote:

Scomagia wrote:[Citation needed]

No citation needed. Law enforcement is a eugenic practice that discriminates against certain varities of traits and behaviors, which reduces their availability in the gene pool, thus shrinking it, which in turn, limits the possible spectrum of human variety (personality, skills, perspectives). Of course it destroys self-responsibility, it gives society a lax in self-protection and ability to solve disputes or problems themselves. It destroys autonomy objectively because people targeted by the forces of judiciary genocide are hindered in their choices of economic sufficiency and interactions with society in general.

I dunno, I would rather call a cop and have you arrested, than shoot you myself for harassing my wife. Either way.

Regardless of their personal moral and ethical fortitude, a police officer is essentially an enforcement mechanism of the state. Thus they're only as "good" as the state they serve.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Emulation White wrote:
No citation needed. Law enforcement is a eugenic practice that discriminates against certain varities of traits and behaviors, which reduces their availability in the gene pool, thus shrinking it, which in turn, limits the possible spectrum of human variety (personality, skills, perspectives). Of course it destroys self-responsibility, it gives society a lax in self-protection and ability to solve disputes or problems themselves. It destroys autonomy objectively because people targeted by the forces of judiciary genocide are hindered in their choices of economic sufficiency and interactions with society in general.

I dunno, I would rather call a cop and have you arrested, than shoot you myself for harassing my wife. Either way.

Thus, you have furthered my argument for the lack of necessity for law enforcement, thank you. It is nothing but a luxury for those who wish to defer responsibility.

Emulation White wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:I dunno, I would rather call a cop and have you arrested, than shoot you myself for harassing my wife. Either way.

Thus, you have furthered my argument for the lack of necessity for law enforcement, thank you. It is nothing but a luxury for those who wish to defer responsibility.

No law enforcement is a way for us to enforce laws and rules to stop people from harming others. It is a way for us to keep order and enforce laws in a way that is as unbiased as possible by having rules and procedures to punish people. You could say many law enforcement systems fail at this but to suggest law enforcement is unnecessary and just a way to defer responsibility is absurd.

Andsed wrote:

Emulation White wrote:
Thus, you have furthered my argument for the lack of necessity for law enforcement, thank you. It is nothing but a luxury for those who wish to defer responsibility.

No law enforcement is a way for us to enforce laws and rules to stop people from harming others. It is a way for us to keep order and enforce laws in a way that is as unbiased as possible by having rules and procedures to punish people. You could say many law enforcement systems fail at this but to suggest law enforcement is unnecessary and just a way to defer responsibility is absurd.

Law enforcement is inherently biased, it is a moral precedent applied universally, that is bias against those it punishes. Societies are capable of creating order without a third party, this is demonstrable by pre-law enforcement communities. We don't need to stop people from harming others on a systematic macro scale. There is no benefit to punishing as many "criminals" as we can; that is a waste of time, resources and genetic material. Societies can stabilize themselves, generally speaking.

It would depend on the government that employs them.

Scomagia wrote:

Kernen wrote:
Skepticism is doubt as to truth. Suspicion is doubt as to intent.

The police's veracity isn't in question so much as their intent. Suspicion is correct. Authority should be questioned, but police specifically shouldn't be trusted at all.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skepticism

Pedantry aside, skepticism is correct. It is the position of doubt and of detached observation. That is what we need to have toward the police.

Suspicion is active distrust. That's no healthier than the reverse. You try doing your job when people arbitrarily assume that you are acting in bad faith. Hell, try doing anything when that is the assumption of you and your motives.

The nature of law enforcement is actively counter to your individual liberties. You maximize your own benefits by refusing to cooperate with officers. Speaking with officers never helps you, and if you do, your statements can be used against you to discredit you, honest or not. Telling the truth can still get you arrested, tried, and convicted. Even when trying to do the right thing and admitting your fault, officers will take advantage of your admission and advise charges regardless of mitigating factors.

The police are rewarded by closing cases, and the constitutional defenses for when they abuse your rights under the Fourth and Fifth amendments have been almost entirely undermined such that the remedy, evidentiary suppression, is presumptively disfavored. Thus, officers have little incentive not to violate your rights and every incentive to do so to close a case.

Police should be treated with active distrust and no citizen should cooperate with any police investigation.

Emulation White wrote:

Andsed wrote:No law enforcement is a way for us to enforce laws and rules to stop people from harming others. It is a way for us to keep order and enforce laws in a way that is as unbiased as possible by having rules and procedures to punish people. You could say many law enforcement systems fail at this but to suggest law enforcement is unnecessary and just a way to defer responsibility is absurd.

Law enforcement is inherently biased, it is a moral precedent applied universally, that is bias against those it punishes. Societies are capable of creating order without a third party, this is demonstrable by pre-law enforcement communities. We don't need to stop people from harming others on a systematic macro scale. There is no benefit to punishing as many "criminals" as we can; that is a waste of time, resources and genetic material. Societies can stabilize themselves, generally speaking.

Are you seriously going to suggest that punishing people who murder and steal is not a benefit to society? Because it seems like you are and that is just ridiculous statement.

Emulation White wrote:

Scomagia wrote:The fact that you assert, rather than demonstrating, your claims is dubious.

Here is for both of you:

https://biologydictionary.net/directional-selection/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology

I know what directional selection is. Law enforcement’s effect is negligible.

EDIT: You seem to think that there is something unnatural about directional selection, when directional selection happens all the time in nature. Also, the human gene pool is definitely not going to be damaged by a few criminals getting removed from it. The human gene pool is extremely large and diverse.

Andsed wrote:

Emulation White wrote:
Law enforcement is inherently biased, it is a moral precedent applied universally, that is bias against those it punishes. Societies are capable of creating order without a third party, this is demonstrable by pre-law enforcement communities. We don't need to stop people from harming others on a systematic macro scale. There is no benefit to punishing as many "criminals" as we can; that is a waste of time, resources and genetic material. Societies can stabilize themselves, generally speaking.

Are you seriously going to suggest that punishing people who murder and steal is not a benefit to society? Because it seems like you are and that is just ridiculous statement.

Yes, I am. It is a detriment. All that money could be put into education, economic development, etc. "Crime" also solves itself, the most anti-social types would most likely keep decreasing their presence in the gene pool because of their behavior. Whereas the rest would be diluted by being able to mix freely with "non-criminal" type people, thus benefiting society by giving birth to a population with a wider and more dynamic cognitive and genetic spectrum. Something biology loves is natural diversity, which is why evolution always seeks to have as much genetic variety in given populations as possible.

The police are simply pawns. How they behave is dependant on who controls them.

Xmara wrote:

Emulation White wrote:
Here is for both of you:

https://biologydictionary.net/directional-selection/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology

I know what directional selection is. Law enforcement’s effect is negligible.

It is absolutely not, please look this over if you feel inclined and we will go from there.

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/in ... evolution/

Police are necessary to enforce laws. That’s all I have to say.

Emulation White wrote:

Andsed wrote:No law enforcement is a way for us to enforce laws and rules to stop people from harming others. It is a way for us to keep order and enforce laws in a way that is as unbiased as possible by having rules and procedures to punish people. You could say many law enforcement systems fail at this but to suggest law enforcement is unnecessary and just a way to defer responsibility is absurd.

Law enforcement is inherently biased, it is a moral precedent applied universally, that is bias against those it punishes. Societies are capable of creating order without a third party, this is demonstrable by pre-law enforcement communities. We don't need to stop people from harming others on a systematic macro scale. There is no benefit to punishing as many "criminals" as we can; that is a waste of time, resources and genetic material. Societies can stabilize themselves, generally speaking.

In the absence of a justice system, that criminal is not going to get rehabbed, he is going to get killed.

Emulation White wrote:

Xmara wrote:I know what directional selection is. Law enforcement’s effect is negligible.

It is absolutely not, please look this over if you feel inclined and we will go from there.

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/in ... evolution/

Oh joy, a “race realist” site.

Emulation White wrote:

Andsed wrote:Are you seriously going to suggest that punishing people who murder and steal is not a benefit to society? Because it seems like you are and that is just ridiculous statement.

Yes, I am. It is a detriment. All that money could be put into education, economic development, etc. "Crime" also solves itself, the most anti-social types would most likely keep decreasing their presence in the gene pool because of their behavior. Whereas the rest would be diluted by being able to mix freely with "non-criminal" type people, thus benefiting society by giving birth to a population with a wider and more dynamic cognitive and genetic spectrum. Something biology loves is natural diversity, which is why evolution always seeks to have as much genetic variety in given populations as possible.

You know, in Sicily after WWII, the Mafia had a self propagating effect.