|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy".
If we're going to move it into the realms of reality, then it should be taken as a given that there'd be a stand-in for the police during the re-organisation. It might have to be national guard or military police in hotspots, even militia. In the US you wouldn't do it all in one go, but state-by-state, since as a whole the nation has the spare resources to cover for a state at a time, though the biggest states might be a tough one. Military police have a spotty record for obvious reasons, but they'd be sufficient until the police were ready to go back to work. As you put it yourself, 6-8 months of military police in a single state shouldn't be an impossibility. They probably couldn't provide the level of coverage the cops do, but they'd keep things ticking along. In addition, the 'new' police would be getting rolled out in stages, so it wouldn't be entirely on their shoulders, more of a 'phase-in-phase-out' process.
Bearing in mind I'm hardly a massive supporter of the idea, but I can figure out a basic idea of how you'd cover the logistics on that front in about ten seconds of thought. There are definitely ways to cover the transition period, and if an administration were actually going to do it, they'd almost certainly go about it roughly along the lines I've suggested.
I think the issue comes down to whether or not you view the current situation as tenable, and whether or not you actually want it to improve. The US police have molded themselves into a society separate from the rest of you, with its own rules and laws, above outside accountability in a lot of cases. If the police aren't law-abiding, and aren't being punished when they break the law - as several are confirmed to have done - then what are they for?
Christ, even the judges in Judge Dredd got that part right. If a Judge stepped out of line, it was considered the absolute worst thing imaginable, and they were executed on the spot without any consideration of other alternatives. Because they were the law, and it was important, even then, for the public to understand that nobody is above the law, especially not those enforcing it.
|
On April 29 2018 18:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2018 18:21 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". You really think without police society would instantly descend into 'complete and utter lawless anarchy'? I think you have a terribly distorted idea of what police, especially in this country actually do or don't do for that matter. To the point of the practical application of the idea, disarming them (taking away their guns) would work wonders to clear out their ranks voluntarily. It goes both ways. I think you have no idea how much crime is prevented by the police, even a bad one. That's not an answer to the question though? I'd agree that neither of us really know how much crime is prevented by police, not unrelated to their refusal to provide information that would help us deduce that. Though I'm not arguing we need them or society will instantly collapse. If you're going to make that argument, you're going to need something more than an assertion I didn't disagree with. Look at any nation without a functional police force. Look at countries with large social unrest resulting in police not working. (like Egypt during the Mubarak revolution).
Increased crime, vigilante justice, gangs assuming control of neighborhoods.
|
On April 29 2018 18:55 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". If we're going to move it into the realms of reality, then it should be taken as a given that there'd be a stand-in for the police during the re-organisation. It might have to be national guard or military police in hotspots, even militia. In the US you wouldn't do it all in one go, but state-by-state, since as a whole the nation has the spare resources to cover for a state at a time, though the biggest states might be a tough one. Military police have a spotty record for obvious reasons, but they'd be sufficient until the police were ready to go back to work. As you put it yourself, 6-8 months of military police in a single state shouldn't be an impossibility. They probably couldn't provide the level of coverage the cops do, but they'd keep things ticking along. In addition, the 'new' police would be getting rolled out in stages, so it wouldn't be entirely on their shoulders, more of a 'phase-in-phase-out' process. Bearing in mind I'm hardly a massive supporter of the idea, but I can figure out a basic idea of how you'd cover the logistics on that front in about ten seconds of thought. There are definitely ways to cover the transition period, and if an administration were actually going to do it, they'd almost certainly go about it roughly along the lines I've suggested. I think the issue comes down to whether or not you view the current situation as tenable, and whether or not you actually want it to improve. The US police have molded themselves into a society separate from the rest of you, with its own rules and laws, above outside accountability in a lot of cases. If the police aren't law-abiding, and aren't being punished when they break the law - as several are confirmed to have done - then what are they for? Christ, even the judges in Judge Dredd got that part right. If a Judge stepped out of line, it was considered the absolute worst thing imaginable, and they were executed on the spot without any consideration of other alternatives. Because they were the law, and it was important, even then, for the public to understand that nobody is above the law, especially not those enforcing it. Sure, but now we're talking about police reform and not abolishing it or scrapping it and starting over.
I have repeatedly told GH that many people would readily agree with him that police in the US needs to be reformed and better but that his choice of words and arguments turns supporters into opposition.
|
On April 29 2018 19:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2018 18:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 18:21 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". You really think without police society would instantly descend into 'complete and utter lawless anarchy'? I think you have a terribly distorted idea of what police, especially in this country actually do or don't do for that matter. To the point of the practical application of the idea, disarming them (taking away their guns) would work wonders to clear out their ranks voluntarily. It goes both ways. I think you have no idea how much crime is prevented by the police, even a bad one. That's not an answer to the question though? I'd agree that neither of us really know how much crime is prevented by police, not unrelated to their refusal to provide information that would help us deduce that. Though I'm not arguing we need them or society will instantly collapse. If you're going to make that argument, you're going to need something more than an assertion I didn't disagree with. Look at any nation without a functional police force. Look at countries with large social unrest resulting in police not working. (like Egypt during the Mubarak revolution). Increased crime, vigilante justice, gangs assuming control of neighborhoods.
So your argument is that the US would look comparable to Egypt amidst a revolution, if we were without police?
I think you at least answered my first question, that you genuinely believe that US police by way of existing and their performance (by what measure no one knows) are effectively staving off anarchic chaos comparable to Egypt during a revolution.
Besides thinking that sounds completely absurd on it's face, I'm curious, why do you think people would be motivated to enact such a society full of chaos were it not for police as we know them in the US?
Surely police aren't why you're not part of a roving gang of evil anarchists?
On April 29 2018 19:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2018 18:55 iamthedave wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". If we're going to move it into the realms of reality, then it should be taken as a given that there'd be a stand-in for the police during the re-organisation. It might have to be national guard or military police in hotspots, even militia. In the US you wouldn't do it all in one go, but state-by-state, since as a whole the nation has the spare resources to cover for a state at a time, though the biggest states might be a tough one. Military police have a spotty record for obvious reasons, but they'd be sufficient until the police were ready to go back to work. As you put it yourself, 6-8 months of military police in a single state shouldn't be an impossibility. They probably couldn't provide the level of coverage the cops do, but they'd keep things ticking along. In addition, the 'new' police would be getting rolled out in stages, so it wouldn't be entirely on their shoulders, more of a 'phase-in-phase-out' process. Bearing in mind I'm hardly a massive supporter of the idea, but I can figure out a basic idea of how you'd cover the logistics on that front in about ten seconds of thought. There are definitely ways to cover the transition period, and if an administration were actually going to do it, they'd almost certainly go about it roughly along the lines I've suggested. I think the issue comes down to whether or not you view the current situation as tenable, and whether or not you actually want it to improve. The US police have molded themselves into a society separate from the rest of you, with its own rules and laws, above outside accountability in a lot of cases. If the police aren't law-abiding, and aren't being punished when they break the law - as several are confirmed to have done - then what are they for? Christ, even the judges in Judge Dredd got that part right. If a Judge stepped out of line, it was considered the absolute worst thing imaginable, and they were executed on the spot without any consideration of other alternatives. Because they were the law, and it was important, even then, for the public to understand that nobody is above the law, especially not those enforcing it. Sure, but now we're talking about police reform and not abolishing it or scrapping it and starting over. I have repeatedly told GH that many people would readily agree with him that police in the US needs to be reformed and better but that his choice of words and arguments turns supporters into opposition.
The police don't need to be "reformed and better", they need to be systematically dismantled from top to bottom. My words don't turn supporters into opposition, they expose (sometimes to themselves) alleged allies as the opposition they are .
|
On April 29 2018 19:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2018 19:31 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 18:21 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". You really think without police society would instantly descend into 'complete and utter lawless anarchy'? I think you have a terribly distorted idea of what police, especially in this country actually do or don't do for that matter. To the point of the practical application of the idea, disarming them (taking away their guns) would work wonders to clear out their ranks voluntarily. It goes both ways. I think you have no idea how much crime is prevented by the police, even a bad one. That's not an answer to the question though? I'd agree that neither of us really know how much crime is prevented by police, not unrelated to their refusal to provide information that would help us deduce that. Though I'm not arguing we need them or society will instantly collapse. If you're going to make that argument, you're going to need something more than an assertion I didn't disagree with. Look at any nation without a functional police force. Look at countries with large social unrest resulting in police not working. (like Egypt during the Mubarak revolution). Increased crime, vigilante justice, gangs assuming control of neighborhoods. So your argument is that the US would look comparable to Egypt amidst a revolution, if we were without police? I think you at least answered my first question, that you genuinely believe that US police by way of existing and their performance (by what measure no one knows) are effectively staving off anarchic chaos comparable to Egypt during a revolution. Besides thinking that sounds completely absurd on it's face, I'm curious, why do you think people would be motivated to enact such a society full of chaos were it not for police as we know them in the US? Surely police aren't why you're not part of a roving gang of evil anarchists? Show nested quote +On April 29 2018 19:34 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:55 iamthedave wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". If we're going to move it into the realms of reality, then it should be taken as a given that there'd be a stand-in for the police during the re-organisation. It might have to be national guard or military police in hotspots, even militia. In the US you wouldn't do it all in one go, but state-by-state, since as a whole the nation has the spare resources to cover for a state at a time, though the biggest states might be a tough one. Military police have a spotty record for obvious reasons, but they'd be sufficient until the police were ready to go back to work. As you put it yourself, 6-8 months of military police in a single state shouldn't be an impossibility. They probably couldn't provide the level of coverage the cops do, but they'd keep things ticking along. In addition, the 'new' police would be getting rolled out in stages, so it wouldn't be entirely on their shoulders, more of a 'phase-in-phase-out' process. Bearing in mind I'm hardly a massive supporter of the idea, but I can figure out a basic idea of how you'd cover the logistics on that front in about ten seconds of thought. There are definitely ways to cover the transition period, and if an administration were actually going to do it, they'd almost certainly go about it roughly along the lines I've suggested. I think the issue comes down to whether or not you view the current situation as tenable, and whether or not you actually want it to improve. The US police have molded themselves into a society separate from the rest of you, with its own rules and laws, above outside accountability in a lot of cases. If the police aren't law-abiding, and aren't being punished when they break the law - as several are confirmed to have done - then what are they for? Christ, even the judges in Judge Dredd got that part right. If a Judge stepped out of line, it was considered the absolute worst thing imaginable, and they were executed on the spot without any consideration of other alternatives. Because they were the law, and it was important, even then, for the public to understand that nobody is above the law, especially not those enforcing it. Sure, but now we're talking about police reform and not abolishing it or scrapping it and starting over. I have repeatedly told GH that many people would readily agree with him that police in the US needs to be reformed and better but that his choice of words and arguments turns supporters into opposition. The police don't need to be "reformed and better", they need to be systematically dismantled from top to bottom. My words don't turn supporters into opposition, they expose (sometimes to themselves) alleged allies as the opposition they are . Do I think people would commit more crimes if there was no risk of police prosecution? Yes, because we are human.
|
On April 29 2018 20:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2018 19:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 19:31 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 18:21 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". You really think without police society would instantly descend into 'complete and utter lawless anarchy'? I think you have a terribly distorted idea of what police, especially in this country actually do or don't do for that matter. To the point of the practical application of the idea, disarming them (taking away their guns) would work wonders to clear out their ranks voluntarily. It goes both ways. I think you have no idea how much crime is prevented by the police, even a bad one. That's not an answer to the question though? I'd agree that neither of us really know how much crime is prevented by police, not unrelated to their refusal to provide information that would help us deduce that. Though I'm not arguing we need them or society will instantly collapse. If you're going to make that argument, you're going to need something more than an assertion I didn't disagree with. Look at any nation without a functional police force. Look at countries with large social unrest resulting in police not working. (like Egypt during the Mubarak revolution). Increased crime, vigilante justice, gangs assuming control of neighborhoods. So your argument is that the US would look comparable to Egypt amidst a revolution, if we were without police? I think you at least answered my first question, that you genuinely believe that US police by way of existing and their performance (by what measure no one knows) are effectively staving off anarchic chaos comparable to Egypt during a revolution. Besides thinking that sounds completely absurd on it's face, I'm curious, why do you think people would be motivated to enact such a society full of chaos were it not for police as we know them in the US? Surely police aren't why you're not part of a roving gang of evil anarchists? On April 29 2018 19:34 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:55 iamthedave wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". If we're going to move it into the realms of reality, then it should be taken as a given that there'd be a stand-in for the police during the re-organisation. It might have to be national guard or military police in hotspots, even militia. In the US you wouldn't do it all in one go, but state-by-state, since as a whole the nation has the spare resources to cover for a state at a time, though the biggest states might be a tough one. Military police have a spotty record for obvious reasons, but they'd be sufficient until the police were ready to go back to work. As you put it yourself, 6-8 months of military police in a single state shouldn't be an impossibility. They probably couldn't provide the level of coverage the cops do, but they'd keep things ticking along. In addition, the 'new' police would be getting rolled out in stages, so it wouldn't be entirely on their shoulders, more of a 'phase-in-phase-out' process. Bearing in mind I'm hardly a massive supporter of the idea, but I can figure out a basic idea of how you'd cover the logistics on that front in about ten seconds of thought. There are definitely ways to cover the transition period, and if an administration were actually going to do it, they'd almost certainly go about it roughly along the lines I've suggested. I think the issue comes down to whether or not you view the current situation as tenable, and whether or not you actually want it to improve. The US police have molded themselves into a society separate from the rest of you, with its own rules and laws, above outside accountability in a lot of cases. If the police aren't law-abiding, and aren't being punished when they break the law - as several are confirmed to have done - then what are they for? Christ, even the judges in Judge Dredd got that part right. If a Judge stepped out of line, it was considered the absolute worst thing imaginable, and they were executed on the spot without any consideration of other alternatives. Because they were the law, and it was important, even then, for the public to understand that nobody is above the law, especially not those enforcing it. Sure, but now we're talking about police reform and not abolishing it or scrapping it and starting over. I have repeatedly told GH that many people would readily agree with him that police in the US needs to be reformed and better but that his choice of words and arguments turns supporters into opposition. The police don't need to be "reformed and better", they need to be systematically dismantled from top to bottom. My words don't turn supporters into opposition, they expose (sometimes to themselves) alleged allies as the opposition they are . Do I think people would commit more crimes if there was no risk of police prosecution? Yes, because we are human.
While I challenge the assertion itself, I also have to note we've moved a world away from your initial suggestion of "complete and utter lawless anarchy"
|
So if you're walking down the street at night, you have to choose either to get shot by a thug or by a cop, pick your poison.
|
On April 29 2018 20:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2018 20:17 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 19:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 19:31 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 18:21 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". You really think without police society would instantly descend into 'complete and utter lawless anarchy'? I think you have a terribly distorted idea of what police, especially in this country actually do or don't do for that matter. To the point of the practical application of the idea, disarming them (taking away their guns) would work wonders to clear out their ranks voluntarily. It goes both ways. I think you have no idea how much crime is prevented by the police, even a bad one. That's not an answer to the question though? I'd agree that neither of us really know how much crime is prevented by police, not unrelated to their refusal to provide information that would help us deduce that. Though I'm not arguing we need them or society will instantly collapse. If you're going to make that argument, you're going to need something more than an assertion I didn't disagree with. Look at any nation without a functional police force. Look at countries with large social unrest resulting in police not working. (like Egypt during the Mubarak revolution). Increased crime, vigilante justice, gangs assuming control of neighborhoods. So your argument is that the US would look comparable to Egypt amidst a revolution, if we were without police? I think you at least answered my first question, that you genuinely believe that US police by way of existing and their performance (by what measure no one knows) are effectively staving off anarchic chaos comparable to Egypt during a revolution. Besides thinking that sounds completely absurd on it's face, I'm curious, why do you think people would be motivated to enact such a society full of chaos were it not for police as we know them in the US? Surely police aren't why you're not part of a roving gang of evil anarchists? On April 29 2018 19:34 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:55 iamthedave wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". If we're going to move it into the realms of reality, then it should be taken as a given that there'd be a stand-in for the police during the re-organisation. It might have to be national guard or military police in hotspots, even militia. In the US you wouldn't do it all in one go, but state-by-state, since as a whole the nation has the spare resources to cover for a state at a time, though the biggest states might be a tough one. Military police have a spotty record for obvious reasons, but they'd be sufficient until the police were ready to go back to work. As you put it yourself, 6-8 months of military police in a single state shouldn't be an impossibility. They probably couldn't provide the level of coverage the cops do, but they'd keep things ticking along. In addition, the 'new' police would be getting rolled out in stages, so it wouldn't be entirely on their shoulders, more of a 'phase-in-phase-out' process. Bearing in mind I'm hardly a massive supporter of the idea, but I can figure out a basic idea of how you'd cover the logistics on that front in about ten seconds of thought. There are definitely ways to cover the transition period, and if an administration were actually going to do it, they'd almost certainly go about it roughly along the lines I've suggested. I think the issue comes down to whether or not you view the current situation as tenable, and whether or not you actually want it to improve. The US police have molded themselves into a society separate from the rest of you, with its own rules and laws, above outside accountability in a lot of cases. If the police aren't law-abiding, and aren't being punished when they break the law - as several are confirmed to have done - then what are they for? Christ, even the judges in Judge Dredd got that part right. If a Judge stepped out of line, it was considered the absolute worst thing imaginable, and they were executed on the spot without any consideration of other alternatives. Because they were the law, and it was important, even then, for the public to understand that nobody is above the law, especially not those enforcing it. Sure, but now we're talking about police reform and not abolishing it or scrapping it and starting over. I have repeatedly told GH that many people would readily agree with him that police in the US needs to be reformed and better but that his choice of words and arguments turns supporters into opposition. The police don't need to be "reformed and better", they need to be systematically dismantled from top to bottom. My words don't turn supporters into opposition, they expose (sometimes to themselves) alleged allies as the opposition they are . Do I think people would commit more crimes if there was no risk of police prosecution? Yes, because we are human. While I challenge the assertion itself, I also have to note we've moved a world away from your initial suggestion of "complete and utter lawless anarchy" Have no police for a week and I expect you will see an uptick in crime.
Have none for 6+ months and yes, I expect anarchy.
You can mitigate it by deploying the military to patrol but that only helps prevent part of the crimes. I don't think it will do much to actually solve the crimes that do happen in the way police investigations do.
|
On April 29 2018 20:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2018 20:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 20:17 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 19:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 19:31 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 18:21 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". You really think without police society would instantly descend into 'complete and utter lawless anarchy'? I think you have a terribly distorted idea of what police, especially in this country actually do or don't do for that matter. To the point of the practical application of the idea, disarming them (taking away their guns) would work wonders to clear out their ranks voluntarily. It goes both ways. I think you have no idea how much crime is prevented by the police, even a bad one. That's not an answer to the question though? I'd agree that neither of us really know how much crime is prevented by police, not unrelated to their refusal to provide information that would help us deduce that. Though I'm not arguing we need them or society will instantly collapse. If you're going to make that argument, you're going to need something more than an assertion I didn't disagree with. Look at any nation without a functional police force. Look at countries with large social unrest resulting in police not working. (like Egypt during the Mubarak revolution). Increased crime, vigilante justice, gangs assuming control of neighborhoods. So your argument is that the US would look comparable to Egypt amidst a revolution, if we were without police? I think you at least answered my first question, that you genuinely believe that US police by way of existing and their performance (by what measure no one knows) are effectively staving off anarchic chaos comparable to Egypt during a revolution. Besides thinking that sounds completely absurd on it's face, I'm curious, why do you think people would be motivated to enact such a society full of chaos were it not for police as we know them in the US? Surely police aren't why you're not part of a roving gang of evil anarchists? On April 29 2018 19:34 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:55 iamthedave wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". If we're going to move it into the realms of reality, then it should be taken as a given that there'd be a stand-in for the police during the re-organisation. It might have to be national guard or military police in hotspots, even militia. In the US you wouldn't do it all in one go, but state-by-state, since as a whole the nation has the spare resources to cover for a state at a time, though the biggest states might be a tough one. Military police have a spotty record for obvious reasons, but they'd be sufficient until the police were ready to go back to work. As you put it yourself, 6-8 months of military police in a single state shouldn't be an impossibility. They probably couldn't provide the level of coverage the cops do, but they'd keep things ticking along. In addition, the 'new' police would be getting rolled out in stages, so it wouldn't be entirely on their shoulders, more of a 'phase-in-phase-out' process. Bearing in mind I'm hardly a massive supporter of the idea, but I can figure out a basic idea of how you'd cover the logistics on that front in about ten seconds of thought. There are definitely ways to cover the transition period, and if an administration were actually going to do it, they'd almost certainly go about it roughly along the lines I've suggested. I think the issue comes down to whether or not you view the current situation as tenable, and whether or not you actually want it to improve. The US police have molded themselves into a society separate from the rest of you, with its own rules and laws, above outside accountability in a lot of cases. If the police aren't law-abiding, and aren't being punished when they break the law - as several are confirmed to have done - then what are they for? Christ, even the judges in Judge Dredd got that part right. If a Judge stepped out of line, it was considered the absolute worst thing imaginable, and they were executed on the spot without any consideration of other alternatives. Because they were the law, and it was important, even then, for the public to understand that nobody is above the law, especially not those enforcing it. Sure, but now we're talking about police reform and not abolishing it or scrapping it and starting over. I have repeatedly told GH that many people would readily agree with him that police in the US needs to be reformed and better but that his choice of words and arguments turns supporters into opposition. The police don't need to be "reformed and better", they need to be systematically dismantled from top to bottom. My words don't turn supporters into opposition, they expose (sometimes to themselves) alleged allies as the opposition they are . Do I think people would commit more crimes if there was no risk of police prosecution? Yes, because we are human. While I challenge the assertion itself, I also have to note we've moved a world away from your initial suggestion of "complete and utter lawless anarchy" Have no police for a week and I expect you will see an uptick in crime. Have none for 6+ months and yes, I expect anarchy. You can mitigate it by deploying the military to patrol but that only helps prevent part of the crimes. I don't think it will do much to actually solve the crimes that do happen in the way police investigations do.
Exactly.
I would imagine that small disputes over the course of time would escalate into cycles of violent retribution. People think we are all civilized by our very nature but all the psychological evidence points to that being a myth. We are civilized because we live in large civilizations with enforced expectations of behaviour. Remove that and all bets are off.
Also, how long before private security companies go about enforcing the law? Would things be any better under that regime than they are now? Where would the oversight come from?
|
On April 29 2018 20:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2018 20:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 20:17 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 19:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 19:31 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 18:21 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". You really think without police society would instantly descend into 'complete and utter lawless anarchy'? I think you have a terribly distorted idea of what police, especially in this country actually do or don't do for that matter. To the point of the practical application of the idea, disarming them (taking away their guns) would work wonders to clear out their ranks voluntarily. It goes both ways. I think you have no idea how much crime is prevented by the police, even a bad one. That's not an answer to the question though? I'd agree that neither of us really know how much crime is prevented by police, not unrelated to their refusal to provide information that would help us deduce that. Though I'm not arguing we need them or society will instantly collapse. If you're going to make that argument, you're going to need something more than an assertion I didn't disagree with. Look at any nation without a functional police force. Look at countries with large social unrest resulting in police not working. (like Egypt during the Mubarak revolution). Increased crime, vigilante justice, gangs assuming control of neighborhoods. So your argument is that the US would look comparable to Egypt amidst a revolution, if we were without police? I think you at least answered my first question, that you genuinely believe that US police by way of existing and their performance (by what measure no one knows) are effectively staving off anarchic chaos comparable to Egypt during a revolution. Besides thinking that sounds completely absurd on it's face, I'm curious, why do you think people would be motivated to enact such a society full of chaos were it not for police as we know them in the US? Surely police aren't why you're not part of a roving gang of evil anarchists? On April 29 2018 19:34 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:55 iamthedave wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". If we're going to move it into the realms of reality, then it should be taken as a given that there'd be a stand-in for the police during the re-organisation. It might have to be national guard or military police in hotspots, even militia. In the US you wouldn't do it all in one go, but state-by-state, since as a whole the nation has the spare resources to cover for a state at a time, though the biggest states might be a tough one. Military police have a spotty record for obvious reasons, but they'd be sufficient until the police were ready to go back to work. As you put it yourself, 6-8 months of military police in a single state shouldn't be an impossibility. They probably couldn't provide the level of coverage the cops do, but they'd keep things ticking along. In addition, the 'new' police would be getting rolled out in stages, so it wouldn't be entirely on their shoulders, more of a 'phase-in-phase-out' process. Bearing in mind I'm hardly a massive supporter of the idea, but I can figure out a basic idea of how you'd cover the logistics on that front in about ten seconds of thought. There are definitely ways to cover the transition period, and if an administration were actually going to do it, they'd almost certainly go about it roughly along the lines I've suggested. I think the issue comes down to whether or not you view the current situation as tenable, and whether or not you actually want it to improve. The US police have molded themselves into a society separate from the rest of you, with its own rules and laws, above outside accountability in a lot of cases. If the police aren't law-abiding, and aren't being punished when they break the law - as several are confirmed to have done - then what are they for? Christ, even the judges in Judge Dredd got that part right. If a Judge stepped out of line, it was considered the absolute worst thing imaginable, and they were executed on the spot without any consideration of other alternatives. Because they were the law, and it was important, even then, for the public to understand that nobody is above the law, especially not those enforcing it. Sure, but now we're talking about police reform and not abolishing it or scrapping it and starting over. I have repeatedly told GH that many people would readily agree with him that police in the US needs to be reformed and better but that his choice of words and arguments turns supporters into opposition. The police don't need to be "reformed and better", they need to be systematically dismantled from top to bottom. My words don't turn supporters into opposition, they expose (sometimes to themselves) alleged allies as the opposition they are . Do I think people would commit more crimes if there was no risk of police prosecution? Yes, because we are human. While I challenge the assertion itself, I also have to note we've moved a world away from your initial suggestion of "complete and utter lawless anarchy" Have no police for a week and I expect you will see an uptick in crime. Have none for 6+ months and yes, I expect anarchy. You can mitigate it by deploying the military to patrol but that only helps prevent part of the crimes. I don't think it will do much to actually solve the crimes that do happen in the way police investigations do.
I linked an article saying that the decades of research they've done into this common assumption is that there isn't evidence to support it.
Your rebuttal was to repeat your assertion and double down on the more extreme characterization neither of which you've supported.
Even if you were right, which I don't think you are, you haven't given us any reason to believe you or to think your understanding of the issue is adequate to critique it effectively.
On April 29 2018 20:49 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2018 20:44 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 20:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 20:17 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 19:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 19:31 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 18:21 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate?
"its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". You really think without police society would instantly descend into 'complete and utter lawless anarchy'? I think you have a terribly distorted idea of what police, especially in this country actually do or don't do for that matter. To the point of the practical application of the idea, disarming them (taking away their guns) would work wonders to clear out their ranks voluntarily. It goes both ways. I think you have no idea how much crime is prevented by the police, even a bad one. That's not an answer to the question though? I'd agree that neither of us really know how much crime is prevented by police, not unrelated to their refusal to provide information that would help us deduce that. Though I'm not arguing we need them or society will instantly collapse. If you're going to make that argument, you're going to need something more than an assertion I didn't disagree with. Look at any nation without a functional police force. Look at countries with large social unrest resulting in police not working. (like Egypt during the Mubarak revolution). Increased crime, vigilante justice, gangs assuming control of neighborhoods. So your argument is that the US would look comparable to Egypt amidst a revolution, if we were without police? I think you at least answered my first question, that you genuinely believe that US police by way of existing and their performance (by what measure no one knows) are effectively staving off anarchic chaos comparable to Egypt during a revolution. Besides thinking that sounds completely absurd on it's face, I'm curious, why do you think people would be motivated to enact such a society full of chaos were it not for police as we know them in the US? Surely police aren't why you're not part of a roving gang of evil anarchists? On April 29 2018 19:34 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:55 iamthedave wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". If we're going to move it into the realms of reality, then it should be taken as a given that there'd be a stand-in for the police during the re-organisation. It might have to be national guard or military police in hotspots, even militia. In the US you wouldn't do it all in one go, but state-by-state, since as a whole the nation has the spare resources to cover for a state at a time, though the biggest states might be a tough one. Military police have a spotty record for obvious reasons, but they'd be sufficient until the police were ready to go back to work. As you put it yourself, 6-8 months of military police in a single state shouldn't be an impossibility. They probably couldn't provide the level of coverage the cops do, but they'd keep things ticking along. In addition, the 'new' police would be getting rolled out in stages, so it wouldn't be entirely on their shoulders, more of a 'phase-in-phase-out' process. Bearing in mind I'm hardly a massive supporter of the idea, but I can figure out a basic idea of how you'd cover the logistics on that front in about ten seconds of thought. There are definitely ways to cover the transition period, and if an administration were actually going to do it, they'd almost certainly go about it roughly along the lines I've suggested. I think the issue comes down to whether or not you view the current situation as tenable, and whether or not you actually want it to improve. The US police have molded themselves into a society separate from the rest of you, with its own rules and laws, above outside accountability in a lot of cases. If the police aren't law-abiding, and aren't being punished when they break the law - as several are confirmed to have done - then what are they for? Christ, even the judges in Judge Dredd got that part right. If a Judge stepped out of line, it was considered the absolute worst thing imaginable, and they were executed on the spot without any consideration of other alternatives. Because they were the law, and it was important, even then, for the public to understand that nobody is above the law, especially not those enforcing it. Sure, but now we're talking about police reform and not abolishing it or scrapping it and starting over. I have repeatedly told GH that many people would readily agree with him that police in the US needs to be reformed and better but that his choice of words and arguments turns supporters into opposition. The police don't need to be "reformed and better", they need to be systematically dismantled from top to bottom. My words don't turn supporters into opposition, they expose (sometimes to themselves) alleged allies as the opposition they are . Do I think people would commit more crimes if there was no risk of police prosecution? Yes, because we are human. While I challenge the assertion itself, I also have to note we've moved a world away from your initial suggestion of "complete and utter lawless anarchy" Have no police for a week and I expect you will see an uptick in crime. Have none for 6+ months and yes, I expect anarchy. You can mitigate it by deploying the military to patrol but that only helps prevent part of the crimes. I don't think it will do much to actually solve the crimes that do happen in the way police investigations do. Exactly. I would imagine that small disputes over the course of time would escalate into cycles of violent retribution. People think we are all civilized by our very nature but all the psychological evidence points to that being a myth. We are civilized because we live in large civilizations with enforced expectations of behaviour. Remove that and all bets are off. Also, how long before private security companies go about enforcing the law? Would things be any better under that regime than they are now? Where would the oversight come from?
You've seconded his unsupported assertion, and tacked on hypothetical imagining of a society where the concept of socially addressing and improving behavior has been abandoned altogether and tangentially supported it with an appeal to "all the psychological evidence" pointing to humans being "[un]civilized by our very nature"
Then randomly speculated about the introduction of private security companies stepping in to fill this as of yet unexplained and exaggerated period of lawlessness.
You then concluded with the only remotely salient part of the entire post, which was a question about where the oversight (of what, you didn't really make clear) would come from.
To try to salvage something out of that post I'll say that oversight would come from the immediate community, the affected communities both locally and nationally, and the federal government as situations implore.
|
vigilante justice, known for its impartial judgement and lack of innocent deaths /s
And from the article you linked GH
Research does show, however, that you can deter crime by nudging would-be criminals to weigh the odds of getting caught in the first place
Instead, Nagin emphasized the effect the mere presence of police can have in a high-crime area. It’s not necessarily about police even doing anything. It’s just about them being there, acting as sentinels on the neighborhood.
I can agree with you that the people who commit crimes now will still commit crimes if the punishment is increased.
But that is different from the chance of getting caught dropping massively by removing the police.
|
On April 29 2018 14:58 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2018 10:01 zlefin wrote:On April 29 2018 09:06 Kyadytim wrote:On April 29 2018 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 08:41 zlefin wrote:
kydaytim what makes you think it's the market that has led to a failure in effective distribution of basic shelter? (and which basic shelter are you talking about, as there's quite a lot of degrees involved, and i'm not sure which level/aspects of shelter you're referencing) The large numbers of people without homes in ratio to the much larger number of homes without people seems to be a fairly glaring indicator, but Kydaytim is probably building that understanding on a variety of other factors. Are you under the impression that the market hasn't failed in this regard? This is mostly correct, but my overall thinking is a little more judgemental. Ignoring the number of unoccupied homes, though, the market has failed to provide some sort of extra dense housing that's more like dorms in that there's only very small bedrooms and larger communal bathrooms. It hasn't even managed anything close to sufficient beds in homeless shelters. how small a bedroom would you consider acceptable? (area-wise that is; the figures i'm familiar are with for sq ft, but it's easy enough to convert whatever units you're used to) at any rate; often the lack of such housing has nothing to do with market failure. it's that various laws and regulations prohibit the creation of such housing (at least at rates and sizes that would be affordable in the open market). local zoning boards are often very powerful; and NIMBY-ism affects local politics a great deal. and variuos other land use policies often heavily restrict hte supply of available land to build on, which drives up the price of land, which causes everything to become more expensive. I don't know. How big is the average college dorm for any given number of occupants? That seems like a reasonable guess for a good size. The specifics of some sort of theoretical extra high density housing (denser than an apartment complex) wasn't really relevant to the idea that the free market will not provide for it. In my opinion anything related to human suffering when resources are available but not allocated is arguably a result of markets not giving inherent value to humans. Health care? Cheap ways of substantially improving health isn't good for profiting. + Show Spoiler +I'm pretty sure I shared this earlier in the thread at some point, but it's worth sharing again. Goldman Sachs analysts attempted to address a touchy subject for biotech companies, especially those involved in the pioneering "gene therapy" treatment: cures could be bad for business in the long run.
"Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" analysts ask in an April 10 report entitled "The Genome Revolution."
"The potential to deliver 'one shot cures' is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies," analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday. "While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow."
Richter cited Gilead Sciences' treatments for hepatitis C, which achieved cure rates of more than 90 percent. The company's U.S. sales for these hepatitis C treatments peaked at $12.5 billion in 2015, but have been falling ever since. Goldman estimates the U.S. sales for these treatments will be less than $4 billion this year, according to a table in the report.
"GILD is a case in point, where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients," the analyst wrote. "In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines … Where an incident pool remains stable (eg, in cancer) the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise." www.cnbc.com Housing? Food? Internet service? If there's no profit to be had, the market just doesn't care. Putting this another way, a purely market driven solution, without government grants, will never provide food or housing for people who are homeless and unemployed, because there is no revenue to be gained. Before you even get into zoning laws, NIMBY, and other legal issues, there is an underlying issue that until the government steps in somehow, markets will not provide any sort of social safety net. Markets will not spend 10 dollars for an 11 dollar return by catering to poor people when they can spend 10 dollars for a 12 dollar return from catering to rich people. The fundamental problem of using markets to allocate resources is that people with large amounts of disposable income distort the markets, because luxury goods have higher profit margins. I'd argue that the legal structures that get in the way of things such as housing for people working 30 hours a week at minimum wage are a result markets that value the desires of one person who earns $100,000 a year more than the desires of five people who each earn $20,000 a year, not the cause of the markets behaving that way.
if you want to solve a problem; you need to describe and understand it accurately.
if the problem is the market; that needs to be fixed (and many agree to fixes for that, like various redistribution programs)
but if hte problem isn't the market; but that legal regulation prevents the creation of affordable housing (which in many places it does), then THAT is what needs to be fixed. The points you raise don't counter my claim that in many cases the problem is regulation, not the market.
and the specifics really do matter; because in many cases, the free market WOULD provide it; if it wasn't prohibited by law to do so; and therefore, blaming market isn't appropriate. while true that it wouldn't cove rpeople with no income, there are ways to deal with that, and there are plenty of government transfer programs that help with that, and give them enough resources to afford something.
here's a good report on the topic of affordable housing:
http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf
and please don't shift your argument to dodge my point; I responded to your point about the lack of high density dorm-like housing, and was pursuing that; NOT the lack of housing for people with no money at all. different aspects of the problem have different solutions; and argumentation doesn't work if you keep changing what it is you're claiming and don't let me pursue one specific claim in depth (or at least not unless you concede that point and move onto a different one). If it's not clear what my complaint is in this paragraph I can clarify it further.
|
On April 29 2018 21:19 Gorsameth wrote:vigilante justice, known for its impartial judgement and lack of innocent deaths /s And from the article you linked GH Show nested quote +Research does show, however, that you can deter crime by nudging would-be criminals to weigh the odds of getting caught in the first place Show nested quote +Instead, Nagin emphasized the effect the mere presence of police can have in a high-crime area. It’s not necessarily about police even doing anything. It’s just about them being there, acting as sentinels on the neighborhood. I can agree with you that the people who commit crimes now will still commit crimes if the punishment is increased. But that is different from the chance of getting caught dropping massively by removing the police.
Removing the police =/= having no "sentinels".
Now that were down to just their existence and have disposed of the errant (but all too common) idea that we definitively know removing their policing powers (beyond their sentinel presence) would have any impact on crime at all, we can talk about how necessary "The Police" are to serve that sentinel role.
I'd suggest you don't need to salvage much of anything from the current policing regime in order to have someone fulfill that sentinel role, certainly they don't all need several guns and armored vehicles and so on.
Considering they'd sooner nearly all resign than give that powertrip up, they must be abolished imo.
|
Abolishing the police is a ridiculous idea. Mostly because it isn't even an idea, its just a phrase. An idea worth discussing would have some sort of conception of what would happen after abolishing the police, but there's constant evasion on that instead of anything that we can discuss.
If you're wondering why people are just making assertions or trying to envision what life would be like with no police, its because you aren't doing that so there's a gap in the conversation where something needs to be.
Guide us on this GH instead of saying we should abolish the police and then dismissing any talk of anything beyond that.
|
United States24578 Posts
What I learned from previous discussions is that in this idea the police would be abolished but their various tasks would be replaced with several other mostly unconnected entities. For example, much of the current administrative enforcement performed by police would be performed by another unarmed organization, doing things like checking if your car registration is up to date. The idea is probably that when you use armed personnel to perform every task under the sun, the risk for escalation is constantly there.
I think this idea as to what types of organized groups there would be to take on whatever roles are still needed after abolishing the police needs to be much more specifically fleshed out, recognizing that it would be a draft and not a perfectly thought out solution. Until those details are specified though, almost nobody will take the idea seriously. I don't think I've seen anywhere in this thread break out ten or so tasks the police currently do perform (regardless of quality of effort) and describe what would happen to those tasks after abolishing the police. For example, if a crime is committed (e.g., murder, rape, theft), who will investigate these crimes and identify likely suspects? Separately, who will arrest these suspects once sufficient evidence convinces a judge that a warrant is appropriate? When the witnesses refuse to show up to court, who will enforce bringing them in? When the suspect is out on bail but then guns down the jury members in the street, how will he or she be held accountable? If I see a shootout between ten gang members in the street outside my home, other than stay inside what should I do?
|
On April 29 2018 21:51 Jockmcplop wrote:
Abolishing the police is a ridiculous idea. Mostly because it isn't even an idea, its just a phrase. An idea worth discussing would have some sort of conception of what would happen after abolishing the police, but there's constant evasion on that instead of anything that we can discuss.
If you're wondering why people are just making assertions or trying to envision what life would be like with no police, its because you aren't doing that so there's a gap in the conversation where something needs to be.
Guide us on this GH instead of saying we should abolish the police and then dismissing any talk of anything beyond that.
GH has gone into what comes after. Several times. I don't know why people forget that. By all means dismiss his ideas if you find them impractical, but it's untrue that he's not posited any. I seem to recall that a modified version of community policing was his initial idea, but supported by the state so it's not just vigilante justice.
Hopefully he'll be willing to reiterate that (much) earlier discussion though.
On April 29 2018 22:02 micronesia wrote:The idea is probably that when you use armed personnel to perform every task under the sun, the risk for escalation is constantly there.
For example, if a crime is committed (e.g., murder, rape, theft), who will investigate these crimes and identify likely suspects? Separately, who will arrest these suspects once sufficient evidence convinces a judge that a warrant is appropriate? When the witnesses refuse to show up to court, who will enforce bringing them in? When the suspect is out on bail but then guns down the jury members in the street, how will he or she be held accountable? If I see a shootout between ten gang members in the street outside my home, other than stay inside what should I do?
Add on a lack of accountability making it clear the police can escalate almost with impunity, as several recently linked videos have shown, and hiring practices that seem to select for the trigger happy, and violent tensions with many urban black communities, and the problem becomes very self-fulfilling, very quickly.
But this is the meat of the issue. The police do a lot of very important jobs that nobody else does, and those jobs do need doing, and breaking them down into smaller, separate, less efficient institutions that work together might not be a viable solution. The paradox being that I think this is the exact reason the police have become corrupt in the first place. They're powerful, necessary, and there aren't many higher authorities, and many of those that do exist (the courts, obviously), depend upon them.
Even if you abolish the police and start over, I'm not sure you can excise the corrupting influences with any degree of reliability. The bigger the enforcement organisation becomes, the more powerful it becomes, the harder accountability becomes, and the cycle starts over with a new hat.
|
On April 29 2018 22:03 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2018 21:51 Jockmcplop wrote:
Abolishing the police is a ridiculous idea. Mostly because it isn't even an idea, its just a phrase. An idea worth discussing would have some sort of conception of what would happen after abolishing the police, but there's constant evasion on that instead of anything that we can discuss.
If you're wondering why people are just making assertions or trying to envision what life would be like with no police, its because you aren't doing that so there's a gap in the conversation where something needs to be.
Guide us on this GH instead of saying we should abolish the police and then dismissing any talk of anything beyond that. GH has gone into what comes after. Several times. I don't know why people forget that. By all means dismiss his ideas if you find them impractical, but it's untrue that he's not posited any. I seem to recall that a modified version of community policing was his initial idea, but supported by the state so it's not just vigilante justice. Hopefully he'll be willing to reiterate that (much) earlier discussion though.
Well that's fair, but I must have missed it. If he wants to reiterate that then I'll have something to discuss.
|
On April 29 2018 21:51 Jockmcplop wrote:
Abolishing the police is a ridiculous idea. Mostly because it isn't even an idea, its just a phrase. An idea worth discussing would have some sort of conception of what would happen after abolishing the police, but there's constant evasion on that instead of anything that we can discuss.
If you're wondering why people are just making assertions or trying to envision what life would be like with no police, its because you aren't doing that so there's a gap in the conversation where something needs to be.
Guide us on this GH instead of saying we should abolish the police and then dismissing any talk of anything beyond that.
It's shorthand yes, for what, I haven't been shy to explain. I'm not sure what part your not getting other than just ignoring what I'm saying regarding what function police serve and how they could be replaced?
I'm not wondering why, I was just pointing out it's preposterousness.
To avoid confusion or accusations I've faced before I'll try to summarize for you again.
Police don't do what you and people opposing abolishing them assume (without supporting evidence) they do. When we recognize this, the role we need to fill without police as we know them dramatically changes.
From there we build teams designed from the ground up to deal with what they are charged with. Most police work isn't interdicting with violent crime or investigations, most of it is paperwork, driving/patrolling, and all the shit no one wants. Occasionally they get involved in legitimate traffic situations, confront bank robbers, or whatever else people imagine warrants their perpetuation.
So our teams are designed accordingly. For those tasked with the day to day interdictions of potentially violent situations (ones people are usually disproportionately focusing on) their primary goal would be deescalation and that would be a primary metric of their success.
For the rare instances when police are responding to actively violent situations (this isn't common and some recent mass shootings have shown common officers aren't prepared anyway) we would have a new team who would typically be a last resort when all other interventions have failed, or things have already/rapidly escalated to a point where the safety and the security of the community dictates that this threat must be neutralized, even if that regretfully means lethal force.
Though still they would be expected to only resort to lethal means when absolutely necessary, rather than if they feel threatened. They would welcome and expect a through civilian/oversight review of such extreme actions and if found to have acted inappropriately, be held accountable under the same (though harsher as an agent of the law) restorative/community justice concepts as the rest of us.
I mean that's not a comprehensive description of the day to day and line items of an abolish the police initiative, or really anything I haven't already suggested, but I don't want this "but you don't give us what you're talking about" thing to go around again.
That alone is better/more exhaustive than either you or Gorsameth (Edit: Or now Micronesia [Mod]) have articulated to undermine it or to explain what the alternative actually is or how it's demonstrably better either. It's just a largely unsubstantiated assertion that "reform and incrementalism is better and your plan means unmitigated chaos" basically.
EDIT: If we can all get as far as dave I'd love to move on to how we avoid the same problems of 'corruption' which I would more identify as the police performing as intended (as they are currently employed).
I too am over this "non-descriptive incremental reforms are obviously better than abolishing the police because duh, crime!?" part of this argument.
|
That is what eventually replaced the current police. That is not where the contention lies. Its the area between Abolish the police and the new Police being ready that I (and others) take issue with and who takes over these duties during that time and how it is enforced.
|
On April 29 2018 22:29 Gorsameth wrote:
That is what eventually replaced the current police. That is not where the contention lies. Its the area between Abolish the police and the new Police being ready that I (and others) take issue with and who takes over these duties during that time and how it is enforced.
What we replace the police with was quite specifically what most people were asking about. You've fixated on this chaotic anarchy period you've envisioned that as has been pointed out was hyper sensationalized, unsubstantiated and failing to recognize some pretty basic assumptions.
If now we're focusing on the transition, accepting that without police we can't definitively expect any significant change in crime, and once they are replaced it will be indisputably better, that's a lot of progress in my book.
To that end, we do it in stages and if temporarily we need supplemental forces we'd start with other regions or other countries familiar with not killing people and violating their rights habitually, and for limited communities particularly at jeopardy of people exploiting a lack of police, perhaps we take into consideration something I would be generally opposed to, like military police under specific and limited authorizations (essentially operating as deputized civilians, not military, when policing).
Or maybe we don't need them at all, maybe simply redistributing officers in a way that reflects the sentry like nature of the most important role they play in crime prevention and people may not even notice when their police department has been abolished and the replacement has taken over until they see the new intervention teams in action or on the TV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
