| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Welcome to Mock Parliament. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| DSP Manifesto; Yes, we actually have one! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 20 2008, 03:18 PM (433 Views) | |
| Cieran | Aug 26 2008, 09:43 PM Post #16 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I say he who gives up his freedom for security deserves neither. What's to say that, if police patrols were eased off and income gaps closed, these mobs as you say would take over?... |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | Aug 26 2008, 10:10 PM Post #17 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Closing the income gap is easier said than done. If you've eased off the police force but your social engineering plans fail, then what? |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | Aug 26 2008, 10:14 PM Post #18 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You don't ease them off first. That would be stupid. I believe that the fewer policemen there are the better really... |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | Aug 26 2008, 10:20 PM Post #19 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Going back to your earlier point though... "I say he who gives up his freedom for security deserves neither." An admirable sentiment, but how exactly are you decreasing peoples freedoms by having more police? If you were arguing against increasing police powers I'd understand your point, but I don't see why you oppose increasing police coverage. |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | Aug 26 2008, 10:35 PM Post #20 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The more police there are out there, the more control they have, meaning the less control for the average citizen... |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | Aug 26 2008, 11:05 PM Post #21 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Control? The police's job is to prevent people from carrying out actions forbidden by law. If you think they have too much control over people, then the answer is not to spread the police force so thinly that it's ineffective - the answer is to repeal the law you consider to be so oppressive that it shouldn't be enforced. |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | Aug 26 2008, 11:26 PM Post #22 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Okay then, the more potential there is for control. I've said this before; while we may not use them in such a way, a future, more authoritarian government, may... |
![]() |
|
| plqx | Aug 27 2008, 07:29 AM Post #23 |
![]()
overlord of the Solafian universe
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Bear in mind that a lot of crimes are unaffected by reductions in levels of poverty. You claim that "the fewer policement there are the better", which means that you ultimately desire a situation with no police force. How then would you deal with criminals? (after all, no matter how much you remove causes of crime, there will always be some people turning to it - whether out of laziness, the idea of making a profit, or simply for the fun of it) Furthermore, tackling the causes of crime in this way would take at least a decade to come into effect, and even then the results are questionable. Do you have any other intentions to help you with this goal, and what will you do to replace this police force whilst your actions are taking effect? |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | Aug 27 2008, 11:59 AM Post #24 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, but even if you reduced police force numbers a more authoritarian government would simply be able to increase them again anyway. |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | Aug 27 2008, 01:48 PM Post #25 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My opposition to police forces comes from my anarchist tendancies. I personally believe that no government is best, and since the police answer ultimately to the government, I believe there should be no police. Obviously again, it's a utopian ideal, and I'm really rather sick of debating this point... |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | Aug 27 2008, 01:56 PM Post #26 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If it's a utopian ideal, then you accept that it cannot be succesfully implemented - in which case why is it your party policy? |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | Aug 27 2008, 02:06 PM Post #27 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's not. We're committed to FEWER police, not no police... |
![]() |
|
| eriatarka1 | Aug 27 2008, 03:58 PM Post #28 |
![]()
Home Secretary
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But what happens if a more anarchic party were to come along, seeing the trend that you have set for fewer police, and decide to reduce it even more and more drastically? I think you'll find you're in a hole and should stop digging. You have no response to this that doesn't undo any previous lines of logic. Your position is utterly untenable. |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | Aug 27 2008, 04:07 PM Post #29 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I stand by my position that the fewer police there are, the more control people have. Your "anarchic government" argument can be undone in much the same way as CC0 undid my totalitarian one. An anarchic government would get rid of the police forces regardless of what previous governments had done, the point is moot... |
![]() |
|
| eriatarka1 | Aug 27 2008, 09:27 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Home Secretary
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, at least three points here, but don't be surprised if there aren't more. 1) I know the point is moot, I fully agree with CC0 on his statement, that whatever happens in the future is not directly in extreme cases dictated by previous governments. I never said I agreed with the argument I set down, because I personally saw the hole in it. I posed it to test you. 2) Had you agreed with my statement, then your line of argument (as you rightly point out) against CC0 concerning a totalitarian state would have been rendered null, as it already has been. Therefore you were not going to agree without being inconsistent. 3) If you disagree with that line of arguing, as you have done, then your original line of argument (when first argued against by plqx) that "more police on the streets can ultimately lead to a climate of fear, where there are police everywhere, and eventually a police state" is rendered null and void. As I said, your position is utterly untenable. I apologise on your behalf if that seemed unclear, but I was completely dazed trying to work out what on earth you meant by your first statement [freedom instead of control?] In essence: you restrict/create freedom through application of legislation; you enforce this through law enforcement officers. Any perception of extra fear and restriction will either be on illegal activities or placebeic. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2






![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





2:47 PM Jul 11