Reading the article it doesn't exactly sound like abolishing the police in the sense that we revert to chaos and anarchy. It sounds more like what else could you do with all the money going to the police now, which could also reduce crime. And it seems the argument is that the police is designed to react to crime as it happen, while there might be ways that can stop the crime from happening in the first place, like better education, more housing, or who knows what else.
I think this is the key takeaway from the opinion piece:
> As a society, we have been so indoctrinated with the idea that we solve problems by policing and caging people that many cannot imagine anything other than prisons and the police as solutions to violence and harm.
I find it an interesting idea to be honest. I don't know that I'm convinced one way or the other, but it definitely seems an interesting area for research and innovation. We innovate solutions to all kind of problems, it seems it has been a while since we've tried to innovate solutions around crime reduction and prevention.
I think part of the reason we allow states and cities to operate with their own governments is just so that they can explore, research, and innovate on a societal level. Bringing politics nationally like has been happening in the USA stifles innovation and therefore could make it harder to find better strategies to handle nonviolent crimes.
(This is not a disagreement, this is mostly conversing on the nuances of exploring the policy given our current political setting. )
I think you make a good point, the internet has kind of brought people together to debate and discuss issues when their personal contexts are very different. This often leads to a kind of stalemate in the debates.
And like you say, nobody is allowed to be wrong or fail in politics anymore, which means we're not allowed to experiment at the local or regional level, or to rollback policies, or just have any kind of rational retrospective. Nope, now it's all ideological, like religion, you can't possibly push a policy that failed, or have a bad idea. That just means you're weak and shall be casted away for the better sharlatan to take your place, he is never wrong, if you doubt how right he is, you shall be jailed or mocked, if his policies don't work, we shall endure them and believe in them even harder.
I think this is the key takeaway from the opinion piece:
> As a society, we have been so indoctrinated with the idea that we solve problems by policing and caging people that many cannot imagine anything other than prisons and the police as solutions to violence and harm.
I find it an interesting idea to be honest. I don't know that I'm convinced one way or the other, but it definitely seems an interesting area for research and innovation. We innovate solutions to all kind of problems, it seems it has been a while since we've tried to innovate solutions around crime reduction and prevention.