[Eddy_Viscosity2]

Not my comment, but I would say its because the checks and balances on people in power are also performed by people in power so many times its just a bit of theatre. Like when you see the police do something absolutely brutally and clear as day a breach of duty and violating someone's rights that should have them not only fired and barred from ever again serving in law enforcement but also put in jail; yet are 'cleared of all wrong-doing' by the police system of checks and balances.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> Not my comment, but I would say its because the checks and balances on people in power are also performed by people in power so many times its just a bit of theatre.

This is at best naive.

People in power, when not already aligned into some faction or cartel tend to be adversarial with each other. People in power like keeping theirs, but also taking others'. Thus, they are also on guard about others taking their power.

When the checks and balances fail, it's usually because someone screwed up and tinkered with things they did not really understand, undermining these mechanisms. The 17th amendment comes to mind.

Even if you were right, the answer to insufficient safeguards isn't "fewer safeguards".

> Like when you see the police do something absolutely brutally and clear as day a breach of duty and violating someone's rights that should have them not only fired and barred from ever again serving in law enforcement but also put in jail; yet are 'cleared of all wrong-doing' by the police system of checks and balances.

Two things come to mind. First, nothing you've described herewithin is even remotely a "checks and balances" system. Second, the problem with the police is that everyone erroneously believes that they want to keep the police only that the police should do what they do to some other group than that they're currently abusing.

The police do not actually accomplish any objectives that anyone (non-homicidal-psychopaths) want. If your bike or car is stolen, they don't retrieve your property... they tell you to fuck off and go have insurance handle it. If you're mugged or raped or killed, they don't catch your assailant except by accident (and likely will bungle that prosecution anyway). If you're still being attacked, they're unlikely to rescue you, don't even have a duty to do so. And god help anyone who comes to their attention when they're in a bad mood.

You already live in a world where the police that you want to exist in your idealistic daydreams do not exist. Neither in whole nor in part. And you survive (more or less) just fine. We could get rid of the abusive police (that's all of them), and nothing would get worse for you.

Most people don't want that though. They imagine doomsday scenarios where chaos would instantly erupt.

[gottorf]

> We could get rid of the abusive police (that's all of them), and nothing would get worse for you.

How do you suppose that rule of law will continue to exist without some mechanism against the rule- and law-breakers? Do any historical examples exist of this working sustainably over the long run?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> How do you suppose that rule of law will continue to exist without some mechanism against the rule- and law-breakers?

Because there's no mechanism that does that now. I'm not saying I like the current outcome exactly... but if that's the floor you're willing to accept for these, we could get exactly the same thing without the current police departments and nothing to replace them.

Imagine any hypothetical scenario you like where you might (unfortunately) have to interact with them. Some sensational crime occurs, and you're unlucky enough to be front and center. How does that play out? How does it play out if you stop using television shows to guide the narrative... how does it play out if you start using the anecdotes journalism you read?

I've yet to come up with a single one of those where things are improved for me, or any of the other non-criminals by the police showing up.