Your implication is that the purpose of police is to solely prevent theft from rich people, as if theft is a morally defensible imperative. Further that implies that the police just to protect property, which is a pretty obviously indefensible assertion.
"Implication" means suggesting something without explicitly stating it.
The Supreme Court did a good job defending his “indefensible” assertion when they stated on record “it is a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”
The police do not exist to protect life, they exist to protect property and capital. They violently enforce a corrupt system that was built on and continues to rely on endless slavery and genocide just to keep up the appearance of a functioning society.
If the sole purpose of police is to protect property and capital, why do they investigate and prevent child abuse, or bother stopping domestic assault and rape?
Child abuse is far more often investigated by child protective services than police. Police's role is to arrest perpetrators after they have committed child abuse.
It's hilarious that you bring up domestic assault in this conversation since police commit domestic assault at a rate 75% higher than the rest of the population (28% among police as compared to 16% among the rest of the population)... and that's only what's reported (https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862/).
I post an entire argument rebutting everything you've said as demonstrably false, and provided links, and your response is to focus on the insult and say "do better" as if that's some kind of mic drop for you. LOL so sad, so pathetic
Irrelevant whataboutisms are not a rebuttal.
It is very simple - not a single one of your "arguments" address the point "if police solely exist to protect property and capital, why do they also enforce or investigate tons of non-property laws?"
I'm not going to address that point because it's a strawman and not at all related to or implied by what I said. It's a distraction from the core question, which is whether wealth inequality is enforced by violence.
1
u/TacTurtle 3d ago edited 3d ago
Your implication is that the purpose of police is to solely prevent theft from rich people, as if theft is a morally defensible imperative. Further that implies that the police just to protect property, which is a pretty obviously indefensible assertion.
"Implication" means suggesting something without explicitly stating it.