zlacker

>>js2+(OP)
I dunno about no police, but Sir Robert Peel has a thought (I posted this the other day, apologies if you've seen it before.) This seems to me to be pretty sane.

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

> The Peelian principles summarise the ideas that Sir Robert Peel developed to define an ethical police force. The approach expressed in these principles is commonly known as policing by consent in the United Kingdom and other countries including Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

> In this model of policing, police officers are regarded as citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police their fellow citizens with the implicit consent of those fellow citizens. "Policing by consent" indicates that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so.

>>carapa+4y
Serious question: how can something be called "consent" if it can't be withdrawn by individuals? That's democracy, not consent.

>>Christ+Vz
What do you mean?

>>carapa+jJ
This advertises itself as "policing by consent", but I'm not sure where the "by consent" comes from. I'm surely missing something, but if you can just add "by consent" to violent actions and then say "individuals cannot withdraw consent", then that doesn't seem like consent to me.

Example: The US military spreading democracy by consent. Sure, lots of recipients of 'democracy' have expressed that they want us to leave, but individuals cannot withdraw their consent from our democracy.