I'm almost ashamed to do this, because it is such an obvious retort:
The nature of the job remains: forcing your moral standards on other people with violence. I find it hypocritical enough to force someone into your moral standard, not even doing it yourself, but delegating others to do it for you just brings it to the next level.
Note: I am not judging whether animal cruelty or any other such thing is OK with me or not, that is besides my point here. My point is (as it always has been in this thread) to get people to take personal responsibility for their beliefs and values. A tall order in a culture where it's standard to just adopt standards from figures and institutions of authority. We are a sad, sad culture of people, who would trust the word of "experts" more than their own judgement
The problem with vigilante services the police is that they often result in people being killed under dubious circumstances. We had a man beaten to death xy here in the UK recently who it turned out was just unpopular with his neighbours the police.
Your idea would mean that if I think someone is being cruel to an animal, Iget a weaponcall the police, who have weapons, force entry to his home and then make a decision as to what punishment is appropriate. Since I they would have him at the end of a gun, you can see the potential for problems.
I can't see that as being more convenient than calling the police. I can't see much difference between this and doing it yourself, except that if the police does it, you get to pretend it is more OK, because they are delegated professionals for this job
Your idea would mean that if I think someone is being cruel to an animal, I
The nature of the job remains: forcing your moral standards on other people with violence. I find it hypocritical enough to force someone into your moral standard, not even doing it yourself, but delegating others to do it for you just brings it to the next level.
Note: I am not judging whether animal cruelty or any other such thing is OK with me or not, that is besides my point here. My point is (as it always has been in this thread) to get people to take personal responsibility for their beliefs and values. A tall order in a culture where it's standard to just adopt standards from figures and institutions of authority. We are a sad, sad culture of people, who would trust the word of "experts" more than their own judgement
That is a logic error. All forms of society, including anarchy, involve forcing your moral standards onto other people. I am opposed to female genital mutilation and I am happy with the present system where people who do that to a girl are named and shamed in court proceedings and their children can be taken into care. Anarchists say that female genital mutilation is a personal moral choice of the parents and that they should be left get on with it. So no matter what you do, you are imposing your moral choices on other people.
Once you accept that logic, you have a decision to make. Do you want everyone to face the risk of mob law? That often misfires. For example, in Wales, a paediatrician was driven out of her home because the locals thought paediatrician is a synonym for paedophile. Or do you want a system of courts whose approval is required for any violent acts and a system of police who are trained to use violence in a minimal way.
Given that choice, any sensible person will choose to have police. Its not hypocrisy - its a sensible way to deal with a real problem.