“First, I think you fail to distinguish between the oppressive use of force.”
Thanks you for your clarification, as it seemed that you were against the any use of force, defensive or otherwise. Of course, you always have the pro-active use of force against an imminent threat, as in the 67 war, aside from theories as to who initiated it. .
“If you truly believe the police prevent crime, I think you are naive. The police do not even pretend they prevent crime. The best they can do is to come in after a crime is committed, and if lucky, apprehend the criminals. And in this day and age, if the police would take a week off, it would prevent a lot of innocent people from having thouses broken into, they or their animals killed or brutalized, or the property stolen—by tht police.”
This i hold as sheer and extreme imagination, and it sounds like the rants of anarchists and libertarians who have a basic animus against authority in general.
While it is certain that many, and in some places most, people might obey laws without law enforcement around, multitudes will not, or will increase that which they are already seeking to do, from not paying taxes to speed limits to stealing and killing. If such happens now despite police, it will only increase in their absence, and in time, anarchy will reign. And not simply in places or circumstances like Baghdad, or New Orleans, but from stores to corporate offices.
I live in a city with one of the highest population densities in the US, and police presence certainly does cut down on crime, “for he beareth not the sword in vain,”and the Bible affirms the just use of such in deterrence of evil. (Rm. 13:1-17; 1Pt. 2:13,14)
Of course, as said before, if people are controlled from within, by God and conscience, then they need not be controlled from without, and it is part of the charter of a true N.T. church to effect the former, which has and will enable smaller government. But when the government is not likewise controlled, then the people mourn.
In addition, only allowing an absence of police as sometime that would prevent crime is absurd and revealing. While the relatively rare occurrences of unjust physical force by police would cease if they took a week off, so would parental child abuse if there were none.
“I do not have anything in common with people who need a government to keep them honest and decent. I don’t, and I don’t know anyone who does.”
I don’t need the gov for that reason either, but the vast multitudes do, and to suppose otherwise is fantasy, or an idea that “honest and decent” is determined by what seems reasonable to you, which may be beneficial, but men like Mao, Pol Pot and the like had their idea of what that was as well, based upon their objectively baseless moral reasoning .
“... it sounds like the rants of anarchists and libertarians who have a basic animus against authority in general.”
I am neither an anarchist or a libertarian but I accept no authority over my life or my mind. No one may morally hold authority over another human being.
I know most men despise liberty because it means responsibility and most people are terrified of being totally responsible for their own life and choices.
Perhaps they need their “authorities” and “rulers.” I do not.
I am glad to let others enslave themselve to anything or anyone they those. If they would only grant me the same and allow me to be free. I do not need them. Why do they need me?
We are not going to agree. I am an independent individualist, through and through. I have nothing in common with anyone who is not totally independent.
Hank