the majority of the capitol police fought against the rioters
Yes, because they are a militia that protects the political class. Are you under the impression that “militia” means “anti-government”?
A militia is just a military force that is made up of non-soldiers. Police in the US are militarized, but they are civilians, not subject to military law. They are literally a militia.
Are you under the impression that “militia” means “anti-government”?
Yes. Government means a civil structure which ostensibly (though in practice, not completely) represents the will of the people. A militia is an armed body accountable to one person or a small group of people, as opposed to the overall governmental and legal system. In the sense that I’m using the word, it represents a challenge to the existing government’s monopoly on violence, and not in a good way.
(If you’re familiar with how it works in places like India where the establishment police are often not that powerful / motivated to help, and powerful families may have their own militias who sometimes skirmish with each other, you will know the difference.)
For as many things as there are to criticize about the anti-democratic nature of the US justice system, switching to individual MAGA people having their own military power base to use to tear down the existing system is a terrifying development. The replacement of accountable law enforcement which in theory provides equal protection under the law, with a violent body which is explicitly protective of one political class only, and explicitly and unaccountably violent to anyone who would oppose it, is a key part of late-stage fascism. (The SA and SS fell into this category and were key to Hitler being able to seize power.) It’s basically the last brick to fall into place before the real horrors can begin.
Sorry, I thought it was clear that my question was rhetorical. The definition I provided is from American Heritage Dictionary. You are incorrect, it does not mean anti-government.
Government means a civil structure which ostensibly (though in practice, not completely) represents the will of the people.
Please cite your source for a definition that includes the “will of the people” part. I think you’re just taking your own beliefs and turning those into definitions in your head.
Note that none of them mention the will of the people, because, as you alluded to but then just sort of glossed over, there are many forms of government which do not claim nor strive to represent the will of the governed.
In the sense that I’m using the word, it represents a challenge to the existing government’s monopoly on violence, and not in a good way.
That’s cool, but that’s all just your opinion. Even whether the way it challenges the government’s monopoly on violence is bad is subjective to you.
switching to individual MAGA people having their own military power base
This is literally many police departments. Hell, they’re even less likely to be held accountable when they kill a black person and bury their body in an unmarked grave, than they would have been if they’d just done it as the kind of militia you’re envisioning.
accountable law enforcement
This is a fantasy that the ruling class maintains by occasionally throwing a couple of the 700,000+ police employed across the US to the “Justice” System to satisfy the public.
a violent body which is explicitly protective of one political class only
So, the police. Or did you mean “political party”? Because there’s only one political class.
It’s basically the last brick to fall into place before the real horrors can begin.
What’s so sad about this is that it implies you think that there aren’t real horrors going on right now. Border Patrol are caging kids to traumatize them and their parents, prison guards are raping and beating people, police oversee literal slave labor all across the US, but as long as there’s still that one step further that they could go, you’ll defend them.
As long as they execute people in the street or put them in camps, and don’t combine the 2, you’re okay with it.
Are you under the impression that the 1920s-era German police and colonial officers were generally friendly to the underclass?
Or, if they weren’t (which is the case), that that represented a good counterargument to someone who was saying the SA represented a new type of dangerous development?
So what I was trying to do in focusing on the pre-Nazi German police was saying, it is possible for the US police to be unjust in all the ways you are claiming they are (which I actually don’t agree with, but that’s beside the point) – and yet still for privately operated armed forces operated by MAGA Republicans to be a terrifyingly significant development. And I was bringing up the example of the SA by way of concrete example to illustrate the point.
Seems reasonable? Or no? I’m happy to talk about justice or injustice in the system as it currently exists without the new SA being added in also; I just didn’t want to shift the topic completely to that instead of talking about the original topic. Can we maybe wrap up the original thing first and then switch to that?
and yet still for privately operated armed forces operated by MAGA Republicans to be a terrifyingly significant development
MAGA people having the ability to enact violence is terrifying, period.
But they already have that- as police, as governors, as other agents of the State. That is much more terrifying than a bunch of assholes in lifted pickups, because I can legally shoot those assholes if they come for my trans nephew, but I can’t if they do it as the police when Red states criminalize being LGBT+, or when they start arresting people for having or seeking abortions.
And to be clear, this Republican is not talking about operating a private militia in the way you seem to be implying, his entire plan is to deputize them under the (already MAGA) Nassau County Sheriff Anthony LaRocco. Literally making them cops. The article is likening it to a private militia, because that’s what MAGA cops are.
I think the fundamental difference is that you seem to think the US government isn’t still the slave-holding, genocidal government that it was when it was founded. I do.
MAGA people having the ability to enact violence is terrifying, period.
But they already have that- as police, as governors, as other agents of the State. That is much more terrifying than a bunch of assholes in lifted pickups, because I can legally shoot those assholes if they come for my trans nephew
The point that I am making, is that they haven’t come for your trans nephew yet, in an organized and trained grouping, to remove him from his parents’ care and take him to somewhere where he can be reeducated or charged with a crime or both. Even in deep red states, that’s still difficult to do, although in some places it’s becoming not impossible.
Creating a force like this is the final step for them to be able to do it easily, outside the bounds of the normal legal system, and shoot you and suffer no consequences if you resist them. If you don’t want that reality, you should be significantly more worried about this development than about the already worrying status quo.
These are deputies, they are just cops. So yes, they are outside the bounds of the legal system just like all cops are. And they’re not any more or less dangerous than any other MAGA cop already out there right now. That’s my point.
Yes, because they are a militia that protects the political class. Are you under the impression that “militia” means “anti-government”?
A militia is just a military force that is made up of non-soldiers. Police in the US are militarized, but they are civilians, not subject to military law. They are literally a militia.
Yes. Government means a civil structure which ostensibly (though in practice, not completely) represents the will of the people. A militia is an armed body accountable to one person or a small group of people, as opposed to the overall governmental and legal system. In the sense that I’m using the word, it represents a challenge to the existing government’s monopoly on violence, and not in a good way.
(If you’re familiar with how it works in places like India where the establishment police are often not that powerful / motivated to help, and powerful families may have their own militias who sometimes skirmish with each other, you will know the difference.)
For as many things as there are to criticize about the anti-democratic nature of the US justice system, switching to individual MAGA people having their own military power base to use to tear down the existing system is a terrifying development. The replacement of accountable law enforcement which in theory provides equal protection under the law, with a violent body which is explicitly protective of one political class only, and explicitly and unaccountably violent to anyone who would oppose it, is a key part of late-stage fascism. (The SA and SS fell into this category and were key to Hitler being able to seize power.) It’s basically the last brick to fall into place before the real horrors can begin.
Sorry, I thought it was clear that my question was rhetorical. The definition I provided is from American Heritage Dictionary. You are incorrect, it does not mean anti-government.
Please cite your source for a definition that includes the “will of the people” part. I think you’re just taking your own beliefs and turning those into definitions in your head.
Here’s Merriam Webster’s definitions of ‘government’: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government
Note that none of them mention the will of the people, because, as you alluded to but then just sort of glossed over, there are many forms of government which do not claim nor strive to represent the will of the governed.
That’s cool, but that’s all just your opinion. Even whether the way it challenges the government’s monopoly on violence is bad is subjective to you.
This is literally many police departments. Hell, they’re even less likely to be held accountable when they kill a black person and bury their body in an unmarked grave, than they would have been if they’d just done it as the kind of militia you’re envisioning.
This is a fantasy that the ruling class maintains by occasionally throwing a couple of the 700,000+ police employed across the US to the “Justice” System to satisfy the public.
So, the police. Or did you mean “political party”? Because there’s only one political class.
What’s so sad about this is that it implies you think that there aren’t real horrors going on right now. Border Patrol are caging kids to traumatize them and their parents, prison guards are raping and beating people, police oversee literal slave labor all across the US, but as long as there’s still that one step further that they could go, you’ll defend them.
As long as they execute people in the street or put them in camps, and don’t combine the 2, you’re okay with it.
Are you under the impression that the 1920s-era German police and colonial officers were generally friendly to the underclass?
Or, if they weren’t (which is the case), that that represented a good counterargument to someone who was saying the SA represented a new type of dangerous development?
What in my comment did you take to in any way convey that?
And should I interpret this to mean you have no issue with/answer for anything else in my comment?
So what I was trying to do in focusing on the pre-Nazi German police was saying, it is possible for the US police to be unjust in all the ways you are claiming they are (which I actually don’t agree with, but that’s beside the point) – and yet still for privately operated armed forces operated by MAGA Republicans to be a terrifyingly significant development. And I was bringing up the example of the SA by way of concrete example to illustrate the point.
Seems reasonable? Or no? I’m happy to talk about justice or injustice in the system as it currently exists without the new SA being added in also; I just didn’t want to shift the topic completely to that instead of talking about the original topic. Can we maybe wrap up the original thing first and then switch to that?
MAGA people having the ability to enact violence is terrifying, period.
But they already have that- as police, as governors, as other agents of the State. That is much more terrifying than a bunch of assholes in lifted pickups, because I can legally shoot those assholes if they come for my trans nephew, but I can’t if they do it as the police when Red states criminalize being LGBT+, or when they start arresting people for having or seeking abortions.
And to be clear, this Republican is not talking about operating a private militia in the way you seem to be implying, his entire plan is to deputize them under the (already MAGA) Nassau County Sheriff Anthony LaRocco. Literally making them cops. The article is likening it to a private militia, because that’s what MAGA cops are.
I think the fundamental difference is that you seem to think the US government isn’t still the slave-holding, genocidal government that it was when it was founded. I do.
The point that I am making, is that they haven’t come for your trans nephew yet, in an organized and trained grouping, to remove him from his parents’ care and take him to somewhere where he can be reeducated or charged with a crime or both. Even in deep red states, that’s still difficult to do, although in some places it’s becoming not impossible.
Creating a force like this is the final step for them to be able to do it easily, outside the bounds of the normal legal system, and shoot you and suffer no consequences if you resist them. If you don’t want that reality, you should be significantly more worried about this development than about the already worrying status quo.
These are deputies, they are just cops. So yes, they are outside the bounds of the legal system just like all cops are. And they’re not any more or less dangerous than any other MAGA cop already out there right now. That’s my point.