[ SECRET POST #5184 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5184 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 25 secrets from Secret Submission Post #742.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

OP

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think you're being stupid at all, first.

I do think that that people assume the difference is the direction of state power and (most but not even close to all of the time) the field of operation. Citizens are (most of the time) entitled to more rights than combatants. But...I think that the state interests the military are advancing are not in fact different than the ones the police are advancing. The police and military are both advancing the stability of the state, and therefore state authority. The military could simply operate different hats towards different people on different "fields" and did and could because the people who could were of a higher class. (I think my greatest objection is in fact that class one, because the idea that police are just citizens with more power is I think mostly validated by the fact that not all civilians have the same power. I do not think we should be inculcating this understanding of citizenry or civilian status). But if enough people die in war, then you simply do not have enough of them to do this, and the state would eventually have to step in. Hence: police.

I do think Vimes is meant to be a character embodying a Socratic conflict regarding policing and coming to one side of them. His internal conflict is the point of him, and therefore I think his resolutions deserve scrutiny.

I just do not think it's possible to have a police force that has more power than citizenry and not have them ultimately believing they are enforcing in opposition of that citizenry. that's just not how institutions operate, even if Vimes as an individual can hold that consideration in his head. So more to the later, in that police in policing's construction as to the interests of the state cannot be civilians AND hold state power. it's an ideal that is mutually exclusive to its purpose to the state, and therefore I'm tired of people going "pratchett has the right idea about police!"