/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2468254
If you want to include Canada
>Justin Bourque - 3 eliminated (2014)

The list grows. Tired of these pedophile satanists who murder children taking the rights away of the weak.

>>2468254
This thread glows

>le propaganda of the deed meme
sure, cops suck, but all these morons died for absolutely nothing lmao

>>2468316
Itll be interesting to see who loves America when their leaders sacrifice children to moloch.

>>2468316
You don't need cops for law enforcement. A militia of ordinary citizens is going to be far less prone to corruption than a group of full time professional violence-dealers who don't spend any significant amount of time on the other end of the gun.

>>2468352
Underrated.

>>2468352
>le corruption
>le citizens
>le peoples militia
bruh lmao, peak anarchist brain

the police or however you want to call them can only act exactly one way under capital

>>2468382
>peak anarchist brain
I am not an anarchist.

>the police or however you want to call them
The fundamental difference between a militia of ordinary citizens and a full-time police force is that the latter creates two groups distinct groups with different material self-interests and an asymmetrical power dynamic. So no, this is not just another name for the same thing.

>under capital
I'm not talking about law enforcement under capital, I'm talking about law enforcement in general, which is something that must necessarily exist so long as law exists.

>>2468352
lmao, how did that play out in the Cultural Revolution or Chaz?

>>2468352
>A militia of ordinary citizens is going to be far less prone to corruption
Lmao what a dumbass. Says who? In what measure? What evidence do you base this information on? Because to me, unaccountable gangs of armed randos, without any oversight or higher organized structure doesn't exactly scream "uncorruptible" tbh

Le agente provocateurre

>>2468646
In hunter-gatherer tribes if you piss people off they bounce and/or shoot you with a poison arrow, maybe we should do that, everyone just carries poisoned arrows (takes more deliberation than a gun).

>>2469294
>>2469300
You seem to be under the impression that I'm advocating for roving gangs of vigilantes doing whatever they feel like. I get why you'd get that impression, but no, I am not.

What I am advocating for, is law enforcement as a civic duty that people rotate in and out of periodically. As a rough example, imagine a system where once every four days, the plumber takes a break from fixing people's pipes and acts as a law enforcement officer. There still is an overall structured system for enforcing the law, but "cop" as a district social group no longer exists.

>>2469685
Just because individuals change frequently doesnt mean le group doesnt exist. How is it different from conscription?

>>2469700
>Just because individuals change frequently doesnt mean le group doesnt exist
If everyone spends a significant amount of time in that group, then it would make everyone a member of that group. If everyone is a member of the group, than the group no longer exists because the in-group out-group dialectic that defines it no longer exists.

>How is it different from conscription?
It isn't. I'm in favor of conscription too.

>>2469703
You think groups exist because of le ingroup outgroup dialectic? Isnt this idealism? Not that i know what idealism is

>>2469711
>You think groups exist because of le ingroup outgroup dialectic?
If you play around with definitions, I could probably answer with a very contrived no, since we could in theory speak of a group that contains everyone and everything. But if we're using language as a tool to describe the world, then yes
The notion of a group is only useful insofar as it describes an in-group out-group relationship. Anything else would be philosophical mental masturbation.

>Isnt this idealism?
No. I don't see the notion of a group as some kind of metaphysical "thing", I see it as a convenient way to describe dialectical relationships on a larger scale than individual subjects (technically most "individual subjects" are themselves actually groups of other things, because materialism).