From Whitescarver.com

Jump to: navigation, search

Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary

See EvolutionaryGameTheory.

A PoliceForce is one strategy by which the behavior required for a group to function well can be partially transmitted down to the level of the individual.

A related strategy is that of punishing crimes which have been deliberately 'hidden' more severely than those crimes that are more likely to be found out.

As groups evolve there also evolves a coherence between the goals at the different levels so that any strategy that damages the group becomes bad strategy for the individual too - even if it was not so at first.

This coherence can also be seen at a finer level than the individual. In the short term it is good strategy for any cell in the body to transform into a cancerous one. The immune system as well as internal (self destruct, apoptosis) checks within the cell make it far rarer than one might otherwise expect. The immune system can be viewed as a molecular analog of a police force.

The Soldier or Army is the usual immune system function eliminating foreign enemies except when it is policing cancer.

In human endeavors about 25% of people always collaborate, 25% often collaborate, 25% collaborate under social pressure, 25% collaborate only under threat.

Clearly we must police those who would take our property, destroy our environment, or deprive us of our rights. But we infringe on the rights of others if we compel them to collaborate.

The real law is street law. If you think I should always cooperate and the government is going to protect me from the bully, you are not living in the real world. Conscript me your vision of TheGoodLife and I may have to kill you. -- freedom police

See also AmericanVanguard

Humm... Isn't PoliceForce really just a CooperativeBully approach? Some Bullies are cooperating, and thereby gain an advantage over others?

In the 50's the policeman was your friend. I can't watch reality TV. It sickens me to see what acceptable police behavior is today. It’s just another indication of the doom that awaits us if we cannot institute the CollectiveIntelligence. We have a higher percentage of our population behind bars, yet violence is increasing. The violence in the police is just a mirror of the violence in US, they are our servants, and they behave as we wish.

We have gone through a few things, socially, that has changed common perception of the Police from being Always Right, to Just Another Bully.

In the 20's, a police officer could do no wrong. Maybe that was due to the conservatism social kick due to WW1 and that general attitude. During and after prohibition, we see a dualism in attitude, of Corrupt Bullies and Still Your Friend (depending on what area of America). With WW2, we go back entirely to 'The Police is your Friend' conservative attitude (a natural result of the conservatism kick from fighting a war). This leads us into the 50s... In the 50s, we have the Red Scare and the Nuke Scare. That's another push for conservatism, as it's a war against those Commies. Its the liberation of Sex for pure Recreation with No Risk (via the Pill) and a general reaction of the young 'The World is Going to Blow Up Any Second====' that lead us into 'Down with the status quo! Down with the soldiers/defenders of the status quo! Down with those Pigs!' ====

Television has certainly not been a friend to the Police (aside from Adam 12, according to various Police Public Relation groups and studies). Why? Because television shows that even in our 'Enlightened' age, the Police are not working for our common good. They work for their own common good, and enjoy being a legal bully.

I've known many police professionals. And you will always find they are bullies. Some are just more polite then others. They enjoy being large and in charge. The main difference I've seen between police and organized crime is that police don't like to kill people more then OC, and the police aren't as focused on money/willing to do anything to get it. Other then that, they tend to act in extremely similar ways, and often perform the same role in the local societies in question.

So, Police are [[ CooperativeBully|CooperativeBullies |]]. They are an 'elite' group cooperating to bully the 'non-elite'/outnumbering (but individually weaker) masses, and dress it up by saying it's for the social good when it's for their own good. If you are friends with many police, you will probably see that the newer ones will often think that they are doing it 'For everyone's good' but that the older ones know they 'do it because they like being the Big Man and being able to bully the common person'.


"you will always find they are bullies"? We hire the police. They are people and should not subject to StatisticalThinking, they are part of [[ UsAndThem |WE]] not [[ THEM |]]. We may need to demand that they act as the servants they are. We control them by our vote and our convictions and what the American way was meant to be.

Yep. Get friends with them. Find the local Blue Bar where they hang out. Go down and meet them. Meet the individuals. Most will be really great guys. And the hardest nosed bullies you will find in a mixture of people. They are always right. They are the elite. They aren't a commoners, mere mortals like everyone else. They are the clothed armored warrior clan, fighting evil and chaos, making peace, and the only thing between Mankind's Society and Utter Chaos. Maybe it's the job. Maybe it's their culture. They are trained, after all, to beat resistance unmercilessly. To escalate at every stage of resistance, until they overcome resistance, the perp stops resisting, or the perp is dead.

What's funny about the 'reality' shows on cops is what they don't show.

The average policeman makes a great neighbor. Because most start out as nice people, who just like to help people. But over time, they get very Bully, if they didn't start out that way to some degree. Or they get out of being a cop.

So, we are making them Bullies? Or their task of being Societies 'Behavioral Coordinators/Sheepdogs' causes it?

You are welcome to demand they act like the servants they are supposed to be. They will kindly ignore you, until you irritate them enough to do something else. Remember, someone complaining against a cop is a crazy person, or a guilty one. The cop is believed first, unless you get it on video to show they are wrong. And that requires someone gets the video out to the local masses. You won't be doing it. Funny, that's the way it is with any Bully group... film their bullying, and get it to the masses so the masses will be offended and crush the bullies. But oops==== That goes against your SkinnersLaw. We should just let the Cops bully everyone however they like, and give some small tax cuts to those who are model citizens. Hmm--- we seem to do with the current American Tax Code, last I checked. Discounts in there for government approved behavior such as being married, having kids, owning your own home, starting your own business, etc etc etc. ====

If you think the Police obey the laws of the masses, you have a very sad shock in store. Those who enforce the rules decide which rules they'll enforce on each other, and it's never as much or as strong as they enforce on those outside their group. That's a simple fact of the HumanAnimal and politics.

Police are elite. They are not part of WE. They remove themselves from the WE. Their job function requires it, their sanity and survival require it. Therefore, you have a problem built into modern society... the Police are not WE. So what are you going to do? Eliminate them?

Police are bullies. Cooperative bullies, but bullies. They enforce their will on the weaker, through mental and physical means. Successful police are like pack hunters... always outnumbering their chosen prey, always picking on the odd/weak/sick/straggler/young/old. It's the key to their continued success and survival. When the police begin to regularly pick on the strong or respected members of the herd, the herd turns and stampedes them.


the Police are not WE Then we fire the bastards. Things have changed in the past and things will continue to change. Saying that things have gotten worse and can never get better is ridiculous.

Cops I know personally are just ordinary people as far as I can tell. I've seen no indication that they are bullies on any kind. Perhaps they become evil when they put on their uniform, I don't really know.

I do know that "THEY are bad" thinking is what has justified man inhumanity to man over the ages. Can't we stop it? People are people and WE should deal with them as brothers.

As long as there is no public outrage about police attitude and actions, of course they are going to continue acting badly. The real issue is not fixing the police; it is fixing the rest of us. We must expect good behavior first, WE do have the power. -- JimScarver

Now, there's a concept! If we could just fix ourselves, then so many of our problems would just go away! But... who will be the people that will implement our [[ WE | FixOurselves |]] program? I'm sure that we could come to a reasonable consensus that most of us could live with (and a simple policy of ‘‘Eradicating All Who Disagree‘‘ will suffice to get rid of those who won't). Of course, then we'd all believe Hollywood, that there is no good or God (although there is Satan and Evil), that science is a con and Magic/Voodoo exists and works.

The world is 'extremely ignorant', and has no desire, as a collective, to improve on that state. So we'd go done to the lowest common denominator if we implement it now. Guess we need to bring the world up to our standards? And to do that, we will need---PoliceForce. Acting as our Cultural Army (Bully) to impose our Beliefs and Standards on others. One that is part of our 'we' and not the general world's WE. Otherwise, it will not act as our 'PoliceForce'.

There is a hope for Utopia. But the HumanAnimal will do it's darned to turn it into a Distopia. And usually succeeds. So how do we get out of this Catch-22? How do we truly start implementing [[ WE | FixOurselves |]] reasonably?

I'll keep playing the cautionary voice here. Someone needs to. If we only Look To The Stars while we walk, we will eventually step into something more dangerous then a small pot hole. It might be aggravating, but I think WE need it. --StarPilot

We tend to act out AntiSocial behaviors when we feel powerless. Often we employ religious or political rationalizations to cloak AntiSocial behaviors as being social.

WE need a PoliceForce to protect us from AntiSocial behaviors and enforce our SocialContract. Yet, is it not better to empower the powerless before they act?

Police are protectors of our SocialContract. It is not a necessary condition that they bully. The Doctor may use invasive procedures, but his mandate and oath is to cure. And so the AntiSocial is an aspect of all of us that must be repressed that we are not a cancer to the world. Perhaps we need a new euphemism for "police" that does not imply punishment and retaliation for as long as those principles override protection, service and prevention, the police will be evil.

Ah.... that is where you keep making your mistake. PoliceForce are not enforcers of a Grand SocialContract of Society. They are the bullies of one Society upon another Society. In any Society, Peer Pressure is the only needed PoliceForce to keep all members of that Society in-line with the SocietalWill and the SocietalSharing (that Society's SocialContract). It is only when there are individuals who do not view themselves as member of a Society does a Society need any physical enforcers.

Examine the history of Societies. Police are only needed to act as agents of their Society to deal with the OutLaws. The OutLaws are people/things that do not see themselves as members of the Society for which the Police act as enforcers. Police are evil? I don't think so. But I do know people who do. And those that do see Police as evil do not see Police as members of their own Society. UsAndThem mentality, again.

As for AntiSocial behavior, see AntiSocial entry. :D ---StarPilot

Since the seventies, misguided PopularScience have indicated that rehabilitation of criminals was not effective. As a result of this viewpoint, tough law enforcement has been adopted and the US has the highest percentage of its population in jail of all modern nations. At the rate we are going everyone will be in jail sooner or later. Reexamination of the data has revealed the opposite to be true. Incarceration is counterproductive, and though many rehabilitation efforts were not any better, overall, rehabilitation is the only thing that has worked.

Police action can largely be supportive, educational, and therapeutic. Yes, the policeman can be your friend again. He can celebrate our individuals and deal with problems on an individual bases as they did in the small town of America in the old days.

Let’s stop enslaving our population in jail, let’s value and help our individuals to live TheGoodLife without bullying others. Let’s use more love and fewer bullets.

Police are responsible to protect and serve. Sometime force is required for protection. Let us put treatment and education before punishment in the world of tomorrow. WE have a choice.

That's not quite truthful. Rehabilitation only works under a small window of conditions. There are various reasons for this, and we can pursue this line of the debate if you wish.

 'This is a scientific question, it is not debatable.  You are right that without consequences, crime increases, but victim restitution and community service work as well or better than punishment in many cases.  We can hold people responsible for their actions without filling our jails.'
 That is not a scientific question, Jim, so get off your horse and set down at this picnic with me. It's a statistics game, and until we settle on the same statistics, we are going to be talking different data sets (and therefore different evidence to work with and draw conclusions from). Your set sounds narrower then the base I'm working from. My sources tend to be what the FBI and the Federal Penal stats (first and second hand), mixed in with whatever I've scooped up from the states. What set are you using? I can go pick a data set that shows rehabilitation 'never' works, if I want to narrow my data set. As it is a statistics game, I am sure a skilled person could stack the data set so that it shows rehabilitation is highly successful.
 From the beginning of American history, it has been shown that rehabilitation can only work under a narrow band of conditions. Most of that band consists of: Unique event chain (similar circumstances are unlikely to occur), person genuinely feels and wants to be different in whatever circumstances/activities brought them into the penal system, and they are capable of living in an acceptably nice manner (to them) after they get out. This last part generally involves having useful job skills (via education) that are in demand enough that employers won't discriminate against our rehabilitated felon due to being a felon.
 Women have a very high rate of being rehabilitated. That's due to certain social and biological factors working for them that just aren't there for men. Although women are much more likely to repeat their crimes if they are placed in similar circumstances in the first place.
 Rehabilitation never works for a drug addict, unless the addict stays away from their addiction. As most did not voluntarily give up their habit, they return to their old lifestyle as soon as they are released. And no amount of rehabilitation will ever work on them, until they want to kick their habit.
 Sociopaths and psychopaths cannot be rehabilitated.

Incarceration, on the other hand, always works. IF, that is, you keep them locked up until they are too old to make trouble. It's expensive, but it does keep down the crime rate.

 'Works how? The number of career criminals in the justice system is less than 5%, for the other 95% society gets little benefit from incarceration but has to bare the expense.  There is evidence that suggests many of the other 5% become career criminals as a result of incarceration.'
 Incarceration works in that it keeps career felons away from society until they are too old to prey upon society. A career felon, once too old to easily prey upon society, is no longer a threat to society. This is proven, scientific fact. The difficulty of what 'rights' the convicted should have is at the heart of why we don't just lock them up for life until they are of sufficiently ancient age to known they cannot return to their previous lifestyle.
 Society gains many benefits from the incarcerated. The main benefit is that the felon cannot interact with society at large, and therefore cannot harm society at large. It is society protecting itself from AntiSocial behavior, and punishes the convicted by forcibly removing them from the lives of people they care about. Humans are social beings, and any that are of a near normal mentality suffer from this separation, and have a motivational factor to not be removed from their family again. However, this factor isn't always topmost in their minds, once they return to society, and hence, becomes more of a factor to not be caught and returned to the penal system after they've slipped back into their old lifestyle.
 Many are used as slave labor, allowing state agencies to make a serious profit, directly or indirectly. Many are used as 'lab rats'. We can go take a tour of all the various tasks and industries that use convict labor. Some are nice, some are not. This is again, scientific fact. Many of these activities allow their local penal facility to be self sufficient, self paying, or profit making, depending on the particulars.

We have so many people locked up because of our stance and laws on drugs. We've kept making tougher and tougher drug laws, and this has led to a serious escalation of the number of people locked up.

 'Only about one fifth of those in jail are on drug related charges.'
 Incorrect. Department of Justice statistics say that the largest majority of those incarcerated are there based on drug related (direct or motivated by) crimes. The approximate number is 68% (AIR), and it is growing. Only 1/5 of the population is in jail due to direct drug charges (possession, paraphernalia, intent to sale). The others types of drug related charges are such like: Committing a murder while robbing a house to get swag to sell for cash to get a rock is a drug related crime.
 The vast majority of all violent crimes in America that are committed are directly related to the acquiring, usage, or control of drugs. This is why drugs are viewed as a problem. They are the central items for high amounts of cash, and high amounts of emotional need. A very bad combination.

If we legalized several drugs, and had the federal government handle their selling, we'd eliminate a great stress on our penal system. It would also increase funds for government, which could be used for all manner of things (and eventually, would). The one serious social problem of legalizing drugs is that it would legitimize the drug and its use (obviously), and this would probably lead to more society members utilizing the drug.

 'I believe government control of medication is a violation of my basic human rights, which I declare for myself and will fight for regardless of whether you think I can have any rights or not.  Particularly in the light of the medical community changing their minds constantly on what medicines are could or bad for various conditions and the utter disregard on individualized effects it is impossible for government to reasonably control medication.  At the same time there is a social cost to allowing self medication.  Thus I would agree to the banning of advertising for recreational drugs and a tax of up to 100% on controlled drugs purchased without a prescription to cover the social cost.'
 You can believe it all you want, but the government already controls the usage, and the terms of that usage, of all drugs. This is based on its responsibility to protect its individual members (the citizenry), and is seen as necessary, as the use of drugs can and often does lead to the violation of other people's rights. BigBrother's job is to protect us, from threats we cannot protect ourselves. Whether that's a foreign army or your next door neighbor that is the job we have appointed it: our PoliceForce, to enforce our will on those that will not obey it without outside influence.
 This is really no different from BigBrother protecting us as we travel, by setting the rules of acceptable behavior (the laws) for travel by roads. Or what minimums are required to use those roads.
 You are talking about reversing this. You state that you feel/believe that we should let the individuals worry about whatever drug they want to use? And how often? This is how it used to be, and 'we' (The American Social Collective) decided that this led to too many people violating other people's basic rights, and was too conducive and easily manipulated by the common greedy man (CriminallyGreedy) to sell fraudulent drugs. One of the basic rules of bureaucracy is that "Bureaus always expand." So long as the BigBrother is tasked to make sure that the drugs sold are what they state they are, and nothing more or less, it will also see all rules and usage of drugs under its authority. We could possibly pare down BigBrother to only make sure that the drug that is sold is exactly what it says it is, but it will just grow back to where it was. There will always be some concerned citizen (or group) that thinks a drug creates behavior so dangerous and so conducive to the violation of innocent bystanders’ rights that its use needs to be regulated more closely for the protection of the citizenry. And we will be back right to where we are.
 'but the above belongs in a different discussion.  I can grant you that their must be consequences to anti-social behavior, but not that their must be punishment.  We can make a real difference in behavior by SkinnersLaw if social behavior is rewarded and anti-social behavior is not.'
 Isn't that a conversation we've had already? Was it under SkinnersLaw or elsewhere? And the primary reason we need a PoliceForce is to catch and punish the transgressors. This helps keep some of those on the borderline of crossing over into criminally punishable behavior from choosing the lazier path of criminality. It will not stop all, of course, but it does stop some. Even if it stops 1%, over time that number becomes significant. Second, having the PoliceForce do so, helps the society feel better. It allows it to feel as if it got its revenge/retaliation on the offenders, and thus allows for the society as a whole to continue to operate more peacefully. Third, it allows those that have keep those that haven't down, and thus protect their status quo.
 We cannot make diddly squat difference in certain kinds of anti-social behavior. You are not going to stop people from killing, robbing each other, scamming each other, or a myriad other behaviors we find AntiSocial. I do believe we can slowly shape a better society, but as SkinnersLaw works just as often directly for a criminal (the mad rush for those adrenalin junkies that get off on burglary, for instance, or the drug addicts rush when he gets his or her next hit). Your logical reference to the application of SkinnersLaw has never stood up to this, as often, the reward to the criminal comes in committing the act itself, and that is why they continue to do so. This is what I think we need to examine and discuss further on this issue: How to make SkinnersLaw work for those situations.
 When a person commits crime because they simply do not have enough money, but are willing to work for it, SkinnersLaw can be demonstrated by helping these individuals to gain the necessary employability to become employed at a job that will meet their monetary needs. This is what we call successful rehabilitation.
 When a felon changes their lifestyle once released, and never becomes convicted again, this we call a successful rehabilitation, but the felon is solely responsible for this change, not society.
 When a felon is held for so long, that they can no longer return to their old lifestyle due to changes in the sub-society, and changes to them (due to growth/aging), this again we call a successful rehabilitation. This is the only case that an external factor can successfully be applied by society to prevent a repeat offense that does not involve killing the felon.
 When a felon is executed, if the felon is buried in a civil graveyard, this again is considered a successful rehabilitation, as the felon has been returned to society. If the felon is buried on prison grounds, he is instead a prisoner for eternity--- a model, trouble free prisoner.
 I will presume you are against BigBrother executing felons. This I see in line, as a dead prisoner cannot be released if it is discovered/disclosed that they were actually innocent. This would be in keeping, I believe, with sentiments I've seen you express at this site. However, feel free to correct me. If we set aside BigBrother killing convicts that only leaves one thing BigBrother can do to insure the safety of the citizenry from a legally proven AntiSocial, and that is to hold them until they are too old to repeat their offense. While providing an education so that motivated felons can improve their employability and therefore meet their monetary needs, those not motivated to 'live the straight life', will not employ their new abilities/education in the peaceful and legal paths.
 Society does not rehabilitate felons. Only they themselves can do that. We can merely provide them the opportunity to improve themselves. So a choice has to be made when to allow felons a chance to rejoin society as productive members, and when society needs to be protected from them. The only question that remains that is apparent to me is: how to determine this discrimination line? How to review that line, and make sure it is set correctly, according to the consensus of the citizenry? ---StarPilot

Interesting==== The pigtailed macaque monkeys (Macaca nemestrina) elect their own PoliceForce. Then that monkey becomes the part. Peaceful monkeys that take over the role will subsequently fight and punish any AntiSocial that doesn't tow the group line. The pressence of such a PoliceForce in their society makes all the members feel safer, and more willing to interact with monkeys in their group that are outside their clique/social standing. ====

An article to get you started on this observed behavior: URL: http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060126monkeycops.html


Personal tools