The police do prevent "mob rule" today. They use violence to keep a minority of wealthy people atop a social hierarchy. When the "mob" below acts up, they violently quash them.
Like, think of any mass social protest movement. Who is the primary "boots-on-the-ground" opposition? It is always the police. It will always be the police. That's what they're there for.
I’m describing an ideal future state. You’re describing the suboptimal current state. This is why I emphasized “should”.
In my city the police deliberately avoid enforcing basic traffic laws and petty crime in a bid to get more funding. As that continues more and more of my neighbors arm themselves. At some point the scales tip and the people take matters into their own hands.
Police can abuse their power in the short term but it can’t continue forever.
I actually suspect you’re describing what I’d consider a suboptimal future state, but it’s hard to tell because most of these words are pretty vague.
Like, what exactly is “mob rule”? Why am I supposed to fear it? Why is it worse than today’s system of rule by a powerful unaccountable minority?
Why is it per se good for the police to enforce laws and fight crime? Those are both social constructs that can target anyone we want them to. 60 years ago, they would have prevented me from marrying my wife; 90 years ago, they would have prevented me from fleeing genocide.
What happens in your ideal future state if the rich and powerful refuse to change unjust laws? If people rise up against oppression, what happens?
Actually, that is not the reason why they should exist. That is the story you are told. But this story has never been true, the propaganda is just a bit more effective these days.
I mean. Look at: Paw Patrol, Miami Vice, Tokyo Vice, the Wire, Criminal Minds, Chicago PD, Southland, Bosch, Law and Order: all of them, law and Order: all of them, CSI: all of them, Luther, The Shield, Reno 911, etc.
I mean this list is just from the top of my head.
We are being indoctrinated in our image of the police. Some rotten apples are shown, but in the end they are always The Good Guys.
Uh. Cops are certainly not always portrayed in media as the good guys. The Wire and Reno 911 aren’t even positive portrayals. On top of that media portrayals are irrelevant in this context.
The alternative to a state monopoly on violence is mob rule. You can call that state entity whatever you want, police, militia, whatever. But some regulated construct needs to exist.
If you can’t separate that concept from the current model of policing it’s unlikely we can have an interesting conversation.
Well, if you are talking about the United States and the supposed Supreme Law of the Land that nobody seems to be too well educated on nowadays, actually it is the job of local militia to defend and enforce civil order
You can not have a free society without a populace taking responsibility for their own. There is a reason the slogan "freedom isn't free", was a big thing in America til just a generation or two ago. The second you start delegating things like safety to the gov you've lost.
Just look at modern America, a giant portion of folks cannot survive without gov assistance now, and look where that got us. How can you oppose a corrupt gov if you cannot even survive without it?
Unless you are so brainwashed (as many still are) that you think that the total lack of privacy and agency in modern America is both good, and somehow fitting to the intent of the Constitution as written.
So you want to disband all police and leave police powers entirely in the hands of "local militias", which according to current definitions of the 2nd Amendment are (reading notes) literally any American with a gun?
Like these jackasses[0]. You want to give these people the right to arbitrarily arrest, detain and kill because two centuries ago Thomas Jefferson saw the horrors of the French Revolution, got the biggest boner of his life and thought "how about that, but a whole country, all the time?"
No thank you. I don't trust the cops but I trust my fellow armed Americans even less. At least the police, ostensibly, have a system they have to abide by other than a piece of parchment saying "everyone gets as many guns as they want, no questions asked." What you're advocating is essentially gang warfare.
Also, "freedom isn't free" became popular as a meme from South Park making fun of the wave of jingoistic, patriotic BS songs after 9/11.
I trust local communities more than state officials any day, yes. Nothing is perfect but if you legitimately think the government is functioning well at this point, I don't expect to convince you so yeah. To each his own.
> Unless you are so brainwashed (as many still are) that you think that the total lack of privacy and agency in modern America is both good, and somehow fitting to the intent of the Constitution as written.
Please bring data when making bold assertions. You are making the assertion: "a majority of people agree with the statement: 'a total lack of privacy and agency in modern America are both good'" - without data, you don't know and it is best left unsaid. It's individuals all the way down and you don't know the context and experiences of others. Again, without data, nobody knows.
-------------
Let's move along. I found this to be really interesting:
> Well, if you are talking about the United States and the supposed Supreme Law of the Land that nobody seems to be too well educated on nowadays, actually it is the job of local militia to defend and enforce civil order
Where does that idea come from? Honest question. Where can I read more about that?
----------------
Generally to understand US history and its laws, my understanding is you need to look to British history and British Common law.
"During the War of 1812, state militias were intended to be the primary fighting force. Unfortunately, while militiamen showed willingness to fight, they were untrained, undisciplined, and ill-equipped." [1]
This is to say the militia was intended to be able to come together in aggregate to form an army.
Going further back to British history:
"Under Elizabeth the English militia system developed still farther; indeed, it was during her reign that the phrase "militia" was first used to describe the concept of a universally armed people ready to stand in defense of their nation" [2]
Resource ([2]) is a fantastic read and gives a very compelling rationale why the 2nd amendment was actually intended as an individual right to bear arms rather than just the right to have well regulated militias. I think you'll find it interesting.
Overall, the rights to religion, the right of assembly and the right to bear arms were very important to the US constitional assembly because this had happened a hundred years prior under a British King:
> Following Cromwell's death, the English were more than happy to accept back the son of the late Charles, Charles II, as monarch. Charles II promptly dissolved the army, offering full pay plus a (p.50)bonus from his own finances, and guaranteeing work on public works projects for the demobilized troops.[31] He also sought to secure himself by a variety of legislation which people in Parliament, in their haste to welcome the end of Puritan rule, did not recognize as dictatorial. In 1661 and 1662 he expanded the definition of treason, imposed press censorship, restricted practice of religion by Puritans and others and leveled the protective walls of many towns which had sided with Parliament.[32] Instructions were also issued to the lord's lieutenant to form special militia units out of volunteers of favorable political views, "the officers to be numerous, disaffected persons watched and not allowed to assemble, and their arms seized...." [2]
In sum, the militias were intended as the backbone of a citizen army. That is very much in line with the idea of a government for the people and by the people. These ideas make a lot of sense to me, but I personally question their applicability following the Industrial Revolution.
In sum, the first and second amendment essentially codify that a King can't the rights away of assembly, religion or bearing arms from anyone, regardless of whether they follow the same religion as the king or agree politically with the king or not.
If you want some solid reasoning for why the 2nd amendment is an individual right, do check out [2]. [2] was a very convincing read for me and before reading it I disagreed with the statement that the 2nd amendment guaranteed an individual right to bear arms.
