|
|
|
|
|
by znfi
3089 days ago
|
|
One thing with all of this which puzzles me as a non-American, how does the "acceptance" of people getting killed by the police fit together with the whole anti-gorvernment thing which seems fairly common in the US as well? One would think that if one does not like the government, one would be extremely upset about the gouvernment randomly killing people. But for some reason this does not seem to be the case. I guess similar things could be said about gun ownership/self-defence argument etc. I guess if one decides to shoot back at the police one is truly screwed? |
|
It's a good question. As a half-American with something of a background in political science, let me offer the following.
The free market liberal ideas, mixed with a sort of pioneer spirit that historically existed here (and still in much of the rural areas of the U.S.), carry with it an arguably consistent ideology:
- Independence from government in the realm of strong market regulations, price controls and so forth, particularly property rights.
- A government whose role is to minimize taxation but to protect said property rights.
It's a logical fact that you can't protect property rights without violence, due to the unequal nature of property ownership and the class system that comes from it. Historically, police start to make an appearance in such societies, as it makes more sense to have the State perform this activity than have each individual hire or join their own private militias or pay protection money to some organization.
That's the best way I can think to explain this discrepancy, which to a European sounds totally contradictory. You say you don't like the State's influence, but when the State does the worst it can do, kill citizens, you do nothing?
It has to do with free market capitalism not existing without a state having basic functions: protection from external threats at the national level, and enforcement of property rights via a legal system and an enforcer of this legal system. I.e. Police.