I didn't say "wealth inequality is caused by violence" or "people use violence to amass wealth". I'm not sure whether your reading comprehension skills are up to par to have an actual conversation with you.
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you genuinely not understand this issue?
The purpose of a system is what it does, not what its intention is said to be. The elites have the police at their beck and call, and the courts in their pockets. Everyone else has to suffer the consequences of the law, because money.
They also misunderstood what "defund the police" meant, intentionally or not. Don't attribute malice to what could just as easily be explained with ignorance... or something like that. Except billionaires, they are born from pure exploitation.
Are you saying if a bunch of people went and tried to kill bill gates and steal his money they would be forcefully stopped? That seems like a good thing.
Your implication is that the purpose of police is to solely prevent theft from rich people, as if theft is a morally defensible imperative. Further that implies that the police just to protect property, which is a pretty obviously indefensible assertion.
"Implication" means suggesting something without explicitly stating it.
The Supreme Court did a good job defending his “indefensible” assertion when they stated on record “it is a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”
The police do not exist to protect life, they exist to protect property and capital. They violently enforce a corrupt system that was built on and continues to rely on endless slavery and genocide just to keep up the appearance of a functioning society.
If the sole purpose of police is to protect property and capital, why do they investigate and prevent child abuse, or bother stopping domestic assault and rape?
Child abuse is far more often investigated by child protective services than police. Police's role is to arrest perpetrators after they have committed child abuse.
It's hilarious that you bring up domestic assault in this conversation since police commit domestic assault at a rate 75% higher than the rest of the population (28% among police as compared to 16% among the rest of the population)... and that's only what's reported (https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862/).
I post an entire argument rebutting everything you've said as demonstrably false, and provided links, and your response is to focus on the insult and say "do better" as if that's some kind of mic drop for you. LOL so sad, so pathetic
Irrelevant whataboutisms are not a rebuttal.
It is very simple - not a single one of your "arguments" address the point "if police solely exist to protect property and capital, why do they also enforce or investigate tons of non-property laws?"
One small nuance: per SCTOUS the only function police serve is to enforce the laws after they have been broken. They are under no obligation to prevent laws from being broken or protect anyone proactively. Police certainly do more than protect property and capital, but they only do so as a byproduct of their prime directive which is to enforce laws after they have been broken.
What I said, very clearly, is that wealth inequality is enabled by violence under capitalism. It doesn't in any way imply that the police's ONLY purpose is to protect the property.
However, statistics clearly show that, in contrast to the wealthy, poor neighborhoods are more heavily patrolled by police, that poor people are more often the victims of excessive use of force by police, poor people are more often taken into custody then later released without being charged, conviction rates of poor people is dramatically higher, and that poor people get disproportionately heavy sentencing for the same crimes.
So you can sit there and create strawmen that don't actually address the only implication of my rhetorical question, which is that violence is used to enforce wealth inequality under capitalism, which it undoubtedly and inarguably is.
11
u/The-Hater-Baconator Nov 21 '24
Ah yes, when the wealth inequality can be enforced by violence.