[ExI] Cory Massimino on advocating police abolition

[Dan TheBookMan]

The idea of abolishing the police seems to be having something of a surge in popularity, even among people who wouldn't ordinarily consider such radical proposals. Nevertheless, many principled opponents of police violence (and some not so principled) are urging the rest of us not to emphasize abolition because it could alienate many people who would otherwise be on board with a basic case for extensive police reform. After all, incremental change is better than no change at all. Now, if you don't actually want to abolish the police, then obviously you shouldn't go around arguing to abolish the police. But if you do want to abolish the police, should you instead adopt a more moderate approach in the public discourse right now?

I don't think so. Here are a few reasons why:

1. If someone disagrees with you about abolition but agrees with you about reform, then calling for abolition will not magically make them stop supporting reform. Abolitionism is not at odds with reform. It actually presupposes support for (genuine) reform since that's what gets you closer to actual abolition. 

2. Focusing on reform over abolition simply reinforces the status quo, which there's already -- by definition -- a surplus of. Putting abolition on the table is the only long run way to shift the window of permissible views. Adopting the same view as everyone else will do nothing to affect change and instead drown your views in a sea of people dogmatically sticking to the party line. 

3. A good chunk of the population is dismissive of the case for abolishing *anything* whether its police, prisons, militaries, borders, capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy, central banks, taxes, etc. How far does one go in hiding their real opinions in all these different areas?

4. Engaging in rhetorical underhandedness, especially for uncertain strategic ends, is just wrong. Interlocutors deserve sincerity and transparency. If you don't express your real views out of a desire to nudge your interlocutor along the right gradual path, I don't think your treating your interlocutor as much of an equal, but instead someone to be manipulated into agreeing more with you than they already do. To conceal one's true views would also tend to undermine the very conditions that make discourse a fruitful, knowledge-generating process. 

5. If I were instead living centuries ago, I wouldn't compromise the case for abolishing slavery one bit, despite knowing full well I would be in a radical minority. If your theory of social change demands you moderate your views on slavery, then it seems to me you should go back and reconsider your theory of social change rather than become a moderate regarding one of the most horrific of evils in all of human history.

So, yes, don't hesitate to demand the immediate, unconditional abolition of the police. Here are two quotes to leave you with that I think are particularly relevant right now:

"We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia... a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty, which is not too severely practical, and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible. We need intellectual leaders who are willing to work for an ideal, however small may be the prospects of its early realization. They must be men who are willing to stick to principles and to fight for their full realization, however remote... Free trade and freedom of opportunity are ideals which still may arouse the imaginations of large numbers, but a mere “reasonable freedom of trade” or a mere “relaxation of controls” is neither intellectually respectable nor likely to inspire any enthusiasm....

Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this had rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide. Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost." - F.A. Hayek, 1949

“I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD.” - William Lloyd Garrison, 1831

——

The above applies, mutatis mutandis, to just about any advocacy of a radical position, no?

Regards,

Dan
   Sample my Kindle books at:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200611/3ae2f748/attachment.htm>