It's a little hard to come up with historical examples because the utopia portion is often quite short and overshadowed by the negatives that follow. Generally, I would point to almost any historical 'revolution' as a warning that tearing down a system and rebuilding it from scratch does not mean improvement, even if it appears to be at the beginning. You could probably point to the August 1789 period of the French Revolution as an example of the 'utopic' phase, but I'm not certain. The fall of Saddam's government in Iraq would be another example. Kurdish Syria is probably another decent example.
eventually the idiots/assholes will become a problem that needs to be dealt with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Utopian_commu...
There's some niche a well-trained police force can fill, but it's a lot smaller than what the poorly-trained forces do now. Almost no one is actually calling for a complete and permanent abolition of police. Just a redefinition of their role.
> The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition. We demand that the Seattle Council and the Mayor defund and abolish the Seattle Police Department and the attached Criminal Justice Apparatus. This means 100% of funding, including existing pensions for Seattle Police
Also, I would look at the Baltimore police/crime post-Freddie Grey to see how diminished police action leads to much increased crime. What the BPD did was horrifying but so was the rise in crime once they became less active.
Certainly an interesting recursion problem.
Everyone tends to get nervous about that though.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia...
Most came together with utopian ideals but fell apart as tension arose between those that just wanted to drop out and take acid and those who actually worked hard and tried to build something. Only one remains AFAICT and that one is atypical, enforcing sharing of everything, down to having a communal wardrobe, and having work schedules etc.
I doubt many people are against the idea of a specialized government role that provides protection services.
What they are against is:
* Thinking we can get that role by reforming existing police systems, given how opposed police systems are to such reform
* That these systems need the absurd budgets of police departments
* That the role requires absurd levels of protection for violent actions
* That the role requires armaments in the majority of cases
Going form police to a role that fits those criteria is going to start with not having police.
1. Abolish police.
2. << A miracle happens. >>
3. Prosper.
Orwell almost certainly did support anarchist revolution and utopia, given his role in the Spanish Civil War - and his concern about the suppression of anarchism through a totalitarian control of information is exactly what 1984 is about. He never would have felt that "Anarchic utopias do not stay utopic for all that long."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Association_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Zapatista_Autonomous_Mun...
But that is the thing I don't see being recognize. While the current institute that is the police could pass away, society will still have rules and will still want enforcers of those rules (though not all rules are equally enforced). And you see this in any supposedly anarchic community, they still have social standards they enforce, they just do not rely the nearby government for enforcement of smaller issues (though there is still a reliance for larger issues, such as stopping annexation by an entity with a larger force). In turn this makes me think all such communities are actually minarchist instead of anarchist, which is a drastic difference in base assumptions.
Why is it so hard for americans to imagine that it's possible to have atleast a semifunctional police apparatus?
a police force doesn't prevent you from being attacked, they only dispense justice after the fact and only sometimes.
welfare, courts and legal systems have a far larger impact than police as a means to prevent violence by having a peaceful way to resolve issues between individuals and ensuring basic needs are met. they also happen to be cheaper.
most violence happens at the edge of society where people cannot avail themselves of the court system. (drugs/prostitution)
police force -> used to arrest dangerous criminals only
police wardens -> used to review, charge, change police policy, and arrest police officers who violate the law.
social officer -> used for all non-violent community enforcement. fines, ticketing, homelessness, mental health issues, etc. have no power to arrest anyone.