Thread - Nostr Hypermedia

That’s a massive conclusion to form. Why would having no police lead to having a massive police state? Not sure how that adds up Regarding your other point, your argument is that in order to prevent violence and theft, we must enact violence and theft. More specifically, we need just the right amount of violence and theft to live prosperously. Too much violence and theft is bad and too little is bad. In order to keep that balance you’re aiming for, the people have to keep government in check. Well why don’t the people just keep themselves in check? Lmao why do you need the government as middle man to begin with?

↑ Parent

Replies (2)

Chris Liss liss@getalby.com 1 week ago

1. Because no police leads to an intolerable state of lawlessness, and the people will beg for an overcorrection. 2.. The people keep themselves in check either by doing violence themselves (state of nature) or outsourcing the violence to an accountable third party (police). Doing it yourself works for a small minority of those cut out to be mafia bosses and warlords, but most will choose to outsource. There is no utopia without the credible threat of violence as deterrence. If you don't punish violent criminals severely you don't have a functioning society.

3 replies ↓

Raison d'État 1 week ago

English Common Law functioned well for a millenium without police. Oriental tyrannies have possessed government police since Antiquity, but the first police force in the English-speaking world were instituted only in 1829. It is true that we are not the same peoples, culturally, as then, but that should be seen as an illness to remedy, not a certainty to submit to.

1 replies ↓