You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
the police would need weapons
even in a utoian community there are laws/rules the member have to follow.
But if there is no punishment there is no reason to follow them (if it benefits you as individual). thats just game theory
to execute a punishment (like take away something or put him in prison)
you need violence/weapons
if you try to put someone in prison or take away something from them but you can't get physical the criminal could always say "no i won't do that"...
what would you as police do then?
they use physical violence to put you in prison
A police force need not exist in its current incarnation.
please explain why
In a society where guns are impossible to obtain, is it necessary for lethal force to be used against anyone who violates the rules and regulations of the community? And would it truly be necessary for the stringent and often pointless laws in place now to be maintained in a utopia?
a weapon doesn't have to be lethal.
e.g.: a rubber bat is a non lethal weapon
If no civilian can obtain any weapons, what is the point of creating a privileged class that has the right to them? It will only result in violence and power struggle.
not realtet to the argument itself:
could you please put your 'but'-premises under the premises you are attacking.
your premise has nothing to do with my claim that there are weapons that are non-lethal
feel free to report as a fallacy if you think it makes sense to
the point is to give the weapons to persons that are trusted and use the weapons not to violate the law but to stop the ones that do
Statistically speaking police are just as likely to violate the law as other people (in some cases such as domestic assault they are actually more likely); therefore they should not be trusted with fairly enforcing the law.
could you please add the statistic to your sources
I've placed a link in the sources for this premise- but googling 'police domestic assault rate' will get you much more.
that means you have to change the methode to decide who is trustworthy
the plan is if one cop does violate the law the others should stop him
The loyalty to their fellow officers is much harder to dispel than their loyalty to a set of moral concepts which they may not even agree with.
but there are laws tht are not pointless.
e.g.: you are not allowed to torture someone.
if a member of society does not follow that law you have to stop him.
Is a police force needed to enforce this? Why should they, when they are often guilty of the same?
yes a police force is needed to enforce this. (see my becaus premise 2nd level)
Why not have a volunteer vigilante force capable of the same actions and responsible for any crimes they commit in pursuit of justice?
what is the difference to the police then?
Right now, the police are not held accountable for the deaths that they cause in the line of duty, even when those killed are innocent. This is the most important change to make.
i don't know where you come from but it is not true in every country.
but i am totaly on your side cops (the individual cop) should be punished if they (he) cause unnecesary death/pain
I agree that we need to have some people to maintain order, but the police force in its modern incarnation is seriously flawed.
do you also agree with me that (some of) the people that maintain order should have weapons?
That would depend on the ability of the society to completely remove weapons from itself.
if the society is a human society you can kill someone and use one of his bones as weapon
so there will still be the posibility to get somehow weapons
Social conditioning towards creating individuals who abhor violence will also go a long way towards this, and of course digging up someone's bone is pretty sketchy stuff.