3. Public Safety

For many years now, it has been the official policy of the United States that the only function of the police is to enforce the law. In light of recent actions and events, it has become widely apparent that they are incapable of even this. Police officers throughout the country have repeatedly failed to arrest individuals who have presented a clear danger to the public, especially when these individuals are also police officers. As a result, police in general throughout the country have become obsolete to their original purpose, and in many cases present more of a liability and a hazard than a public service.

There is an ample solution, though by no means simple, and that is for the people to take the task of the government unto themselves and build the organizations they need for their own safety.

The vast majority of police work involves no weaponry or threat of violence. This kind of work can be undertaken by local volunteers,  and dispatched by a central organization, constructed by local communities for their own benefit. With the assistance of medical professionals and other experts, and the goodwill of the community, individuals who are not parts of any official government agency can become capable public assets, even without substantial funding. Once these organizations develop the capability of properly serving their neighbors, primarily through a process of trial and error over a significant length of time, the community can simply divest itself from dependence on the police and have no further involvement with them.

In the matter of dealing with violence, a possible solution comes from the 2nd Amendment. It is technically legal to form an armed militia for community defense without any direct involvement from the government; though current legal authorities may disagree. These units must be organized and deployed with great care, lest they either overstep their bounds, or draw the attention of those seeking to harm the communities by their policies. There is a risk in creating a group capable of violence, even with purely defensive intent, and so such militias must be both controlled, with direct oversight by the people they represent, and curtailed, such that they cannot easily engage in violent actions without due intent. The balance between capability and restraint is a difficult one to meet, and may be impossible to perfect.

The prospect of replacing the police with a functional system is a thorny one, and which can only be undertaken through a series of trials and errors, aided by some amount of luck. The way we can each individually be a part of this process is by engaging with our communities, both with our neighbors as individuals, and with our elected officials as their sovereigns, and promote the creation of alternative public safety systems. This will doubtless be an arduous task, but it is necessary.

Such is the nature of democracy that it is the responsibility of all of us to take part in the preservation of our society.

2. Don’t Feed the Trolls.

When the internet was new, it was commonly accepted advice that if someone deliberately antagonized you, the most sensible reaction was to ignore them. For some reason, this simple and proven advice has been increasingly ignored.

As the internet has pervaded society, the culture that grew up around it has also become part of everyday life. Except that while early internet users quickly learned how to deal with obnoxious and harmful personas, society at large has not yet caught on.

Certain individuals have discovered that trollish techniques, shocking behaviors and self-absorbed attitudes can easily draw attention, which can then be used to influence others. This extremely crude approach should be easily defeated, yet so many have been caught off-guard by the strength and recent ubiquity of them that they have begun to mount results.

Presently, we are in a situation where many individuals have achieved status, wealth, and even public office by employing these tricks, while those who achieved status by more legitimate methods are increasingly relying on the more unsavory ones as being easier and quicker ways to achieve and preserve their goals. As these lazy and callous methods become more commonplace, they make social discourse more difficult, and thereby make the resolution of social issues more unlikely.

The simplest, and possibly easiest, way to address this is through a cultural acceptance of the limitations of these methods, enacted by positive and sensible interactions. No matter what situation you’re in, always try to ascertain whether someone you’re interacting with is acting in good faith. If they’re not, there is NO REASON to continue interacting with them. Simply ignore their statements and actions to the greatest possible extent and continue doing what is necessary.

On an individual level, both in person on the internet: If you get into an argument with someone over ideological or philosophical differences, try to set up a fair and reasonable exchange so that ideas can be effectively shared and compared. Put forth some basic rules to keep things in line (for instance, no name-calling). Ideally, suggest a formalized debate, especially with a moderator or other third party to maintain pre-established rules. This is a lot more work than most people are willing to expend, and shows that you care about getting the right result. Another useful strategy is to offer to describe a situation in the past in which your opinion has been wrong, on the condition that the other party do the same. Openly accepting your own fallibility can ease the path to satisfying conclusion to the debate, in which both sides agree on the answer.

Many people, probably including yourself, will not want to go through this, and that is the point. If you’re not willing to accept a personal cost of time spent and vulnerability bared, there’s little benefit to be gained from taking part in a debate. Simply shouting at someone who disagrees with you can be cathartic, but is far from productive. There’s a certain type of pleasure to be gained by trying to overwhelm someone with righteous fury, and that pleasure is a trap to be avoided.

If a reasonable debate cannot be arranged, an argument is pointless. Leave it be and find something more useful to do.

On a business level: CEOs, marketers, advertisers, and other corporate mouthpieces do not represent the whole of their company. A company is made up of many people, and if they do not collectively embrace an idea, it is not their company policy. This is doubly the case for corporations, whose policies are partially dictated by investors outside of the company itself.

If you are interested in changing a company’s actions, pay attention to their actions only. Press statements mean nothing.

On a governmental level: Every person who works for or with the government in any capacity is a public servant. It is therefore not their purpose to engage in debate with the public (it is their purpose to engage in debate with one another, but that is another matter). This applies to legislators, judicators, executive leaders, and any employees of such. A government official should never offer their personal opinion or belief on the matter. Doing so is outside the brief of their job. Likewise, there is no reason for you to ask for their opinions on a matter. At most, you should ask them how they intend to enact the parts of their job.

In order to judge the worth of an official, the only means to do so is by their actions. If they have been in government before, look at their record and judge them based solely on that basis. Otherwise, attempt to judge based on their personal history, which they should in good conscience vouchsafe to you if they seriously intend to be your servant. The statements that a servant makes are irrelevant.

1. Preservation of Sovereignty

If you’re worried about the state of the world (and if you’re intelligent enough to read, you are), there’s one simple action you can take that will significantly improve matters. And that is to save your money. Particularly, to save it from those who would misuse it.

Every organization- political or financial- that abuses the earth or its people does so with the indirect aid of locals. That aid mostly comes in the form of money, acquired from taxes or sales. If those sources of money dissipate, so too will the power of these organizations.

Avoid spending money where it is not needed, and especially to companies that have careless or even harmful policies. Avoid monopolies in particular: never give money to Amazon, Disney, Facebook, or Google, or any service owned by them (Audible, Instagram, Youtube, etc.) All of these companies have would-be competitors struggling to establish themselves, most of whom would be better able to serve your needs if given the chance. Though you might spend more on an individual case basis, you will save in the long term by helping to develop healthy competition that will stabilize the economy.

Understand that harming and destroying huge corporations is actually beneficial. They’re like trees; once they get too big, their contribution to the forest is minimal, and they cast shade that prevents new trees from growing. Eventually, they’ll fall over and make room; if not, a cleansing fire will remove them. This is a natural process.

The matter of government is more complicated. There can be harsh consequences for not paying taxes, but understand that even without paying tax, you still retain most of your rights, including crucially the right to vote. And if your government refuses to offer any help to you, there is no reason for you to provide any help to it.