In the broad strokes, I absolutely agree, but I think you need a few asterisks in that statement to avoid becoming copaganda yourself.
There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the law*, with enforcing said law** or those who chose to enforce it***
* The law isn’t always just, and can be just as rotten as the lawmakers can. It used to be against the law to be gay, and that law IS fundamentally wrong. “Don’t murder people” is a just law, though.
** The law isn’t always enforced evenly. Some officers only enforce the law when it suits them, letting wealthy people get away with murder while cracking down on minorities for minor offences. If you make sure to treat everyone evenly, you’re fine.
In addition, enforcing unjust laws is unjust, and I don’t care if you were just following orders.
*** Not everyone chooses to enforce the law for the sake of the law. Many cops became cops because of the status that comes with the badge. They don’t care about protecting the innocent. Luckily, even the most ruthless in the 99 is in it to protect people.
Well anarchists disagree with the fundamental premise that the state (generic name for government) should have either the right to create laws that are applied to everyone living in a geographic are or the act of people appointed by the state to enforce it.
The short version of that belief is based on the concept of consensus of consequences, decided and enforced among equals. As opposed to 2 special classes of citizens having special roles, ruling over others, such as senators and police.
Cops enforce authority of the ruling class through a monopoly on violence. The ruling class is the bourgeoisie. Neither senators nor police are a separate class, just traitors to the working class.
In the broad strokes, I absolutely agree, but I think you need a few asterisks in that statement to avoid becoming copaganda yourself.
* The law isn’t always just, and can be just as rotten as the lawmakers can. It used to be against the law to be gay, and that law IS fundamentally wrong. “Don’t murder people” is a just law, though.
** The law isn’t always enforced evenly. Some officers only enforce the law when it suits them, letting wealthy people get away with murder while cracking down on minorities for minor offences. If you make sure to treat everyone evenly, you’re fine.
In addition, enforcing unjust laws is unjust, and I don’t care if you were just following orders.
*** Not everyone chooses to enforce the law for the sake of the law. Many cops became cops because of the status that comes with the badge. They don’t care about protecting the innocent. Luckily, even the most ruthless in the 99 is in it to protect people.
Right. My implication was that those things are sometimes or even often wrong, but they don’t have to be.
They covered all of that with the part you left out.
Well anarchists disagree with the fundamental premise that the state (generic name for government) should have either the right to create laws that are applied to everyone living in a geographic are or the act of people appointed by the state to enforce it.
The short version of that belief is based on the concept of consensus of consequences, decided and enforced among equals. As opposed to 2 special classes of citizens having special roles, ruling over others, such as senators and police.
Cops enforce authority of the ruling class through a monopoly on violence. The ruling class is the bourgeoisie. Neither senators nor police are a separate class, just traitors to the working class.
Well said
In theory fully agree, but we also need to remind ourselves that there’s a significant percentage of law makers that come from capitalist families.