|
Harold Fjord posted:Bolded the key word. Pushing back when we end up having to have armed men pointing guns at people is going to be a net good. Yes I agree with limiting interactions with armed police is a good idea I'm specifically pushing against the idea of the removal of the coercive force. Who enforces the fines? Why would anyone pay a fine with no punishment attached to non compliance? There's no reason to comply with any order without a coercive stick. And doesn't turning everything into a fine simply mean the rich are free to continue to do as they please with no repercussions? I understand that this is already the case and the rich largely abuse the legal system already but it becomes much simpler to simply pay a fine than fight it in court.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:38 |
|
|
flashman posted:Yes I agree with limiting interactions with armed police is a good idea I'm specifically pushing against the idea of the removal of the coercive force. No punishment? I think the "punishment" question is more complicated than the police existing as they are is punishment and if we get rid of them there is none. Again, we've already discussed restricting various freedoms like "you don't get to buy gas" that could also be theoretically extended to other things, like booze. Feel free to come up with some of your own! flashman posted:And doesn't turning everything into a fine simply mean the rich are free to continue to do as they please with no repercussions? I understand that this is already the case and the rich largely abuse the legal system already but it becomes much simpler to simply pay a fine than fight it in court. Obviously it would be best to dismantle capitalism, but of course we can't solve all its problems in the police reform thread so I'm not going to try. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Sep 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:No punishment? I think the "punishment" question is more complicated than the police existing as they are is punishment and if we get rid of them there is none. Again, we've already discussed restricting various freedoms like "you don't get to buy gas" that could also be theoretically extended to other things, like booze. Feel free to come up with some of your own! It's not just punishment it's about compliance with restricted freedoms. Nothing that's been suggested can cope with the people who just ignore all the rules. Ban an alcoholic from buying booze and they just steal it. The can't buy gas thing can be bypassed by just using your mates/partners/stolen car. There's a basic foundational problem at the root of this which is that bad people don't care about the rules. John Spartan swearing gif.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:The can't buy gas thing can be bypassed by just using your mates/partners/stolen car. As opposed to now, where unlicensed drivers cannot borrow or steal cars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
All of these arguments seem to suggest we might need some sort of more limited enforcement mechanism after we abolish the police. I agree!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
I think the problem with your thinking is that people who commit crimes do do because they're "bad people" who "don't care about the rules". People have motivations, usually quite obvious motivations, for commuting crimes. Frequently it's a lack of money, or untreated mental illness, or an argument that goes too far. They usually aren't lone wanderers without families or jobs or things they care about either. The sort of person for which violent arrest is the only solution is an anomaly, a tiny minority, and while the system does have to have some way of dealing with them, it shouldn't inform of the justice system interacts with everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 16:35
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I think the problem with your thinking is that people who commit crimes do do because they're "bad people" who "don't care about the rules". People have motivations, usually quite obvious motivations, for commuting crimes. Frequently it's a lack of money, or untreated mental illness, or an argument that goes too far. They usually aren't lone wanderers without families or jobs or things they care about either. The sort of person for which violent arrest is the only solution is an anomaly, a tiny minority, and while the system does have to have some way of dealing with them, it shouldn't inform of the justice system interacts with everyone else. Also yes this, like: Morningwoodpecker posted:There's a basic foundational problem at the root of this which is that bad people don't care about the rules. This is such a weird view of people, that criminals are just "the other" and we cannot know how they function. Like criminals are the bad guys in a death wish movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 16:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As opposed to now, where unlicensed drivers cannot borrow or steal cars. Your idea would add to it whilst having no way of keeping it at the current level let alone reducing it. How do you think all the legal drivers would react to being unable to fill up before showing their permission to travel papers and paying ?.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 16:40
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:Your idea would add to it whilst having no way of keeping it at the current level let alone reducing it. Some of them might stop driving and take the bus instead, which would be an improvement. But otherwise I don't think swiping two cards rather than one would be particularly onerous? If it even would be that, of course, because it would be entirely sensible to use the same infrastructure to handle secure electronic verification of both your bank details and your driving license so you could probably just get both of them on the same card eventually. Or like clip them together or something and contactless it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Sep 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 16:41
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I think the problem with your thinking is that people who commit crimes do do because they're "bad people" who "don't care about the rules". People have motivations, usually quite obvious motivations, for commuting crimes. Frequently it's a lack of money, or untreated mental illness, or an argument that goes too far. They usually aren't lone wanderers without families or jobs or things they care about either. The sort of person for which violent arrest is the only solution is an anomaly, a tiny minority, and while the system does have to have some way of dealing with them, it shouldn't inform of the justice system interacts with everyone else. I never mentioned motivation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:I never mentioned motivation. yes that it why the flaw in your argument was pointed out
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 16:46
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:I never mentioned motivation. My point is that you're using a theoretical, idealized bad actor as your example, which is unreal and not really something that needs much of a response. Yes, in the vanishingly small number of cases where the person is an unstoppable crime juggernaut society has to wield force against them. That shouldn't inform how law enforcement as a whole works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
Like I don't think, again, in a society where you have made a lot of effort to reduce the incentive to commit crime, that there are going to be many committed mad max road warriors constantly stealing or borrowing cars just to drive around and run people over. That's a lot of effort when you could just get the bus instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:yes that it why the flaw in your argument was pointed out It's irrelevant to my argument. My argument is all about the immediate practicalities of owlfanciers plan not working as without coercion non-compliance would be far too easy and the public posse could be misdirected maliciously even xenophobically by those that way inclined. As for the motivation behind the crime it's a separate issue to the immediate practicalities of stopping the drunk driver or the guy on the rampage. We can go down that alley if you like, but for the things that could help there you need the guy out of the car or not stabbing people first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
The idea that someone could do those things is silly though. The person next to you could just stab you in the face for no reason, anyone could snap at any moment and go on a rampage, but they don't. The idea that people could do that is not one to be assuaged by having a cop in every space just in case someone goes mental. It's dealt with by telling the person who thinks that that they're paranoid. It's the same rationale that says you might get blown up by terrorists therefore we need poo poo like the patriot act and harsher prison sentences, more police, more armed police, more security, all of society must become a prison so that nobody can possibly ever do a crime. No, that's daft, I would sincerely hope that you don't follow that logic elsewhere so I don't understand why you would do it here. I might get blow up by a terrorist bomb. If someone really wanted to there's not really much that would stop them from doing that. But I don't live my life around that minute possibility. I don't want the government to do whatever they claim would help reduce that because ultimately even my white rear end would be more likely to be negatively affected by expansion of the security state than I would be to get attacked by a terrorist. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Sep 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:As for the motivation behind the crime it's a separate issue to the immediate practicalities of stopping the drunk driver or the guy on the rampage. No it's not, and I explained why. When people have motivations and attachments, you can compel them to change their behavior without resorting to violence. Further, events don't happen in a vacuum; the place to stop drunk driving or rampage shooters is before they ever begin their crime, with proper social programs and easily accessible mental health care.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 17:12
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:My point is that you're using a theoretical, idealized bad actor as your example, which is unreal and not really something that needs much of a response. Yes, in the vanishingly small number of cases where the person is an unstoppable crime juggernaut society has to wield force against them. That shouldn't inform how law enforcement as a whole works. That's a compelling argument in favour of really tightening gun control in the US. The cops have to go in hard because otherwise they might die if they meet an edge case, by going in hard they shoot people a lot. The root problem there is having more guns than people. Get that under control and things might calm down a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:That's a compelling argument in favour of really tightening gun control in the US. The cops have to go in hard because otherwise they might die if they meet an edge case, by going in hard they shoot people a lot. It's certainly a major component of the problem, but it's a long way from the whole story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 17:17
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:No it's not, and I explained why. When people have motivations and attachments, you can compel them to change their behavior without resorting to violence. Further, events don't happen in a vacuum; the place to stop drunk driving or rampage shooters is before they ever begin their crime, with proper social programs and easily accessible mental health care. I couldn't agree more no argument from me at all. It has no impact on getting the guy out from behind the wheel once he's gone down that route though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Like I don't think, again, in a society where you have made a lot of effort to reduce the incentive to commit crime, that there are going to be many committed mad max road warriors constantly stealing or borrowing cars just to drive around and run people over. That's a lot of effort when you could just get the bus instead. Or they just buy a cheap beater off someone and drive it until they're caught again? Honestly I think a lot of the disparity in view here is the assumption that people are driven to crime solely from desperation/poverty and mental illness. That is a driving factor in crime under the current regime because a rational actor isn't going to risk their freedom to act in anti social ways. Under a regime in which enforcement is toothless why wouldn't I sell drugs to increase my personal wealth? Or use violence/the threat of violence to get my way? We are all already complicit in heinous acts in the name of wealth except we export the misery to the rest of the globe, man is good at disassociating their actions from the ills they cause. I guess the elimination of paper money and having the government able to control your spending to the necessities is a possible form of coercion in the modern age, but not one I would trust the current crop of pols to utilize justly or fairly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
I don't think crime actually works like a one way barrier and once you do a crime you become some sort of crime elemental made of crime that immediately cuts themselves off from all society to focus on your supervillain lone wolf crime career. It is I, the man so committed to drunk driving that I am going to spend all my money on disposable cars because I just love crime driving so much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
Criminals just keep comitting crimes so why bother with laws at all? Is your argument that only the existence of the police is preventing you from becoming a wanton destroyer of other humans? You just keep saying things like 'no teeth' and 'no consequences' but there are some. Then you dismiss them as circumventable as tho the current system doesn't have the same problems. People still commit crimes with the current consequences, it's not clear that this would drastically increase if those consequences stopped including your immediate death. We can't get rid of police because of things that are still happening all the time despite the police? Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Sep 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
Why wouldn't I sell drugs without the police to stop me? Why indeed? Why wouldn't you legalize drugs and sell them in a normal drug store with dependable quality and dosing, like you do literally all other drugs or foods. I don't think anyone is going to want to buy your lovely drain cleaner cut with pop rocks when they can buy good quality drugs at the drug store. Policing and the war on drugs is the only way to stop drug crime! It definitely doesn't actually create it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 17:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think crime actually works like a one way barrier and once you do a crime you become some sort of crime elemental made of crime that immediately cuts themselves off from all society to focus on your supervillain lone wolf crime career. A criminal record absolutely is a one way street for most of the people who go far enough down it to frighten off potential employers. They don't need to live in a volcano lair with a hairless cat, they just need enough notifiable stuff for people to pick any of the other applicants instead. OwlFancier posted:Why wouldn't I sell drugs without the police to stop me? Why indeed? Why wouldn't you legalize drugs and sell them in a normal drug store with dependable quality and dosing, like you do literally all other drugs or foods. I don't think anyone is going to want to buy your lovely drain cleaner cut with pop rocks when they can buy good quality drugs at the drug store. Policing and the war on drugs is the only way to stop drug crime! It definitely doesn't actually create it. Prohibition doesn't work for anyone except the dealers. Morningwoodpecker fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Sep 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
Perhaaaps then we should maybe stop making people's survival linked to their ability to find employment? Perhaps we could even make people's employment not dependent entirely on working at someone else's discretion? Perhaps you are describing a problem created by capitalism, which I did suggest is inextricable from the need for policing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 17:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Perhaaaps then we should maybe stop making people's survival linked to their ability to find employment? Sounds great to me, you'll need to pay for it via taxation though. Which has to backed up with a system of fines and potentially more severe punishments and enforcement to avoid non-payment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
I drink because work sucks, and because I am sold drink as a cure for that, I drove to the bar because car ownership makes somebody money and public transport has been destroyed by people looking to sell cars, I drove home afterwards and killed someone because I couldn't afford a taxi and I already had my car, I lost my job because I had to work and drink and drive to make someone money, I can't get a job now because I have a criminal record and I have to steal to live. I have to go to prison because the state needs some way to handle people like me that it has made. The solution to all of this, of course, is more cops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
Absolutely no one is arguing for more cops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 17:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I drink because work sucks, and because I am sold drink as a cure for that, I drove to the bar because car ownership makes somebody money and public transport has been destroyed by people looking to sell cars, I drove home afterwards and killed someone because I couldn't afford a taxi and I already had my car, I lost my job because I had to work and drink and drive to make someone money, I can't get a job now because I have a criminal record and I have to steal to live. I have to go to prison because the state needs some way to handle people like me that it has made. I don't drink or want more cops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:That's a compelling argument in favour of really tightening gun control in the US. The cops have to go in hard because otherwise they might die if they meet an edge case, by going in hard they shoot people a lot. This is disproven by even a basic analysis of the statistics. In the US, a random White person is 50% more likely to own a gun that a random Black person, and more than twice as likely to own a gun as a random Hispanic person. If police brutality was the result of them applying a rational response to an armed populace, you'd expect the number of people the police kill to reflect that. They, uhhhhh, don't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
Eminai posted:This is disproven by even a basic analysis of the statistics. In the US, a random White person is 50% more likely to own a gun that a random Black person, and more than twice as likely to own a gun as a random Hispanic person. If police brutality was the result of them applying a rational response to an armed populace, you'd expect the number of people the police kill to reflect that. They, uhhhhh, don't. The universal availability of guns means they have to carry guns and approach every situation like it's about to become a gun fight, its not a rational thing they just don't want to die. Less guns means they'd be more inclined to take the time to think or have a look at the situation first. It also means they might even be able to go unarmed and have two hands free making them far more effective and competent at non-lethally controlling people. It would also deter gun-nuts from joining which is probably a step in the right direction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
Nice diversion. Abolish them, and no one will have reason to shoot them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Abolishment of the police is exactly what I want, but it's engaging to talk about all the larger/smaller implications of it happening. Are people going to try to push the police back into place if something happens after? How much is the regression fallacy going to come into play?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
You know how prohibition only works for the dealers, that would be the same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:Sounds great to me, you'll need to pay for it via taxation though. We could pay for it right now under existing taxation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:The universal availability of guns means they have to carry guns and approach every situation like it's about to become a gun fight, its not a rational thing they just don't want to die. If it's not rational, then getting rid of every gun wouldn't impact the fear that everyone they deal with is armed. Ignoring, of course, the other incredibly obvious argument against getting rid of guns, that Morningwoodpecker posted:You know how prohibition only works for the dealers, that would be the same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:We could pay for it right now under existing taxation. Not if you abolish the enforcement side of taxation. Eminai posted:If it's not rational, then getting rid of every gun wouldn't impact the fear that everyone they deal with is armed. Ignoring, of course, the other incredibly obvious argument against getting rid of guns, that You'd obviously need to disarm the public first, then give it a generation due to all the ones stashed in attics and buried in gardens. Then disarm the cops, maybe a phased transition over time as the public disarmament thing progressed. Morningwoodpecker fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Sep 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:Not if you abolish the enforcement side of taxation. Why? Have you ever seen an armed IRS agent?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Why? Have you ever seen an armed IRS agent? They tend to carry briefcases.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:38 |
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:They tend to carry briefcases. Cool, so are you going with the ever popular "if we abolish police then there are no laws" with this or what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 19:24
|
|