Utopia has highly specialized, unarmed officers who rely on the military for gun threats. Auditing allows for competition and other good incentives. Utopian police reflect a positive, service-oriented culture.
Drug licenses are tyranny. People have a right to do anything they want to their own body, unimpeded, unless and until they harm someone else. Drugs are not inherently bad so no one has the right to interfere.
Gun control of any typical level is too much, people have the right to self-defense, especially against tyranny, and the government doesn't have the right to more force than the people unless absolutely necessary for the common good. Here's one way to bridge that gap:
To have the right to search government must already have gathered evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise they've inverted innocent until proven guilty and the rule of law means nothing.
Police should do their investigations in private to avoid prejudicing the innocent, but that cannot entail any version of fraud and cannot be done so as to create a chilling effect on those not directly targeted for good reason. If the investigation results in a prosecution it should be made.public. If the evidence actually shows someone is dangerous, everyone else has the right to know about it, but there may be numerous less intrusive ways to force compliance with ethical mandates, other than prosecution per-se.
With open source surveillance systems it's perfectly possible for the State to collect everything but only be able to access it for use when there's a clear and obvious need, and it can be done in such a way that it does not violate the privacy of others.
Still, ubiquitous surveillance is inherently chilling and should only be done where it's least intrusive, where people reasonably may believe they're being seen anyhow, not just wherever it's convenient. There is actually a reasonable expectation of privacy in many public places, in an alley, at night...
There need only be one traffic law - drive safely. If a person cannot be trusted with that, they cannot be trusted to drive at all. All other ordinances, besides necessary ones like which side of the road, are suggestions which a responsible driver will take into account. Having to watch for police for your own protection is directly detrimental to safe driving. Citizen dash cams and fair surveillance as outlined above can do most of the necessary work.
The most important tool in a piece officer's bag is a legitimate set of laws to enforce. Then they have the right to do what everyone has the right to do. But if the laws are fair and reasonable, There's little opportunity for policing. And if they're not, no one has the responsibility to follow them or the right to enforce them anyway.
A typical peace officer should be a volunteer who keeps a local beat and only observes and reports. There can be numerous people on call in any neighborhood, civilians, who have special training in negotiation and de-escalation to serve as the next step. Only in cases of extreme ongoing harm would a typical police officer be necessary.
Resisting arrest is a right until such time as guilt is effectively adjudicated. Innocent until proven guilty means the right to self defense, including against kidnapping, stands unimpeded before that time. Anyone who arrests another takes on the responsibility of that act if it's based on bad epistemology, and is clear otherwise.
Of course any variety of policing takes on a hefty assumption about what kind of laws and society they're interacting with. What matters most is that they have legitimacy, aren't granted and do not exercise power except minimally and necessarily.
Drug licenses are tyranny. People have a right to do anything they want to their own body, unimpeded, unless and until they harm someone else. Drugs are not inherently bad so no one has the right to interfere.
Gun control of any typical level is too much, people have the right to self-defense, especially against tyranny, and the government doesn't have the right to more force than the people unless absolutely necessary for the common good. Here's one way to bridge that gap:
https://kaiserbasileus.substack.com/p/libertarian-fascist-gun-control
To have the right to search government must already have gathered evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise they've inverted innocent until proven guilty and the rule of law means nothing.
Police should do their investigations in private to avoid prejudicing the innocent, but that cannot entail any version of fraud and cannot be done so as to create a chilling effect on those not directly targeted for good reason. If the investigation results in a prosecution it should be made.public. If the evidence actually shows someone is dangerous, everyone else has the right to know about it, but there may be numerous less intrusive ways to force compliance with ethical mandates, other than prosecution per-se.
With open source surveillance systems it's perfectly possible for the State to collect everything but only be able to access it for use when there's a clear and obvious need, and it can be done in such a way that it does not violate the privacy of others.
Still, ubiquitous surveillance is inherently chilling and should only be done where it's least intrusive, where people reasonably may believe they're being seen anyhow, not just wherever it's convenient. There is actually a reasonable expectation of privacy in many public places, in an alley, at night...
There need only be one traffic law - drive safely. If a person cannot be trusted with that, they cannot be trusted to drive at all. All other ordinances, besides necessary ones like which side of the road, are suggestions which a responsible driver will take into account. Having to watch for police for your own protection is directly detrimental to safe driving. Citizen dash cams and fair surveillance as outlined above can do most of the necessary work.
The most important tool in a piece officer's bag is a legitimate set of laws to enforce. Then they have the right to do what everyone has the right to do. But if the laws are fair and reasonable, There's little opportunity for policing. And if they're not, no one has the responsibility to follow them or the right to enforce them anyway.
A typical peace officer should be a volunteer who keeps a local beat and only observes and reports. There can be numerous people on call in any neighborhood, civilians, who have special training in negotiation and de-escalation to serve as the next step. Only in cases of extreme ongoing harm would a typical police officer be necessary.
Resisting arrest is a right until such time as guilt is effectively adjudicated. Innocent until proven guilty means the right to self defense, including against kidnapping, stands unimpeded before that time. Anyone who arrests another takes on the responsibility of that act if it's based on bad epistemology, and is clear otherwise.
Of course any variety of policing takes on a hefty assumption about what kind of laws and society they're interacting with. What matters most is that they have legitimacy, aren't granted and do not exercise power except minimally and necessarily.
#somethoughts