Jun 8, 2020
mirzaCheck out something called the Gini coefficient. It's a number which represents how much income inequelity there is in a given geographical area. What you'll find is that "relative" poverty is what actually causes most of the crime.
Relative poverty IS NOT the same thing as poverty. Absolute poverty means you have nothing to eat. Relative poverty means your neighbour has a better car than you. As you can see from the map above, the US has a higher gini coefficient than most other western countries.
The reason relative poverty causes higher crime rates seems to be that if men have a hard time acheiving social status, to the point that they feel like the game is rigged against them, they turn to nihilism and violence. And crime is mostly committed by young men.
Now solving relative poverty is hard, but what seems to work for most developed countries is a balance between free-market capitalism and reasonable social policy (e.g. Scandinavia). That of course comes at the cost of innovation and technological progress, in which a full blown capitalist society is extremely good at (e.g. USA).
That being said, abolishing law enforcement in America today would be a total disaster.
I guess thank you for telling me some things I already know?
Jun 8, 2020Synopsishttps://ktt2.com/jails-prisons-are-an-outdated-concept-and-we-should-get-rid-of-them-62239
thank you
Jun 8, 2020
IKARUS2020Yeah every place that has police is peaceful asf right 👍
There's no peaceful places without police either outside of remote tribes and very small villages.
- Jun 8, 2020
I think for people to get on board with this, they'll have to run a test run of sorts and fine tune some of it. The idea of letting people out of prison and the vague idea of decriminalizing "survival" which would be tricky doesn't comfort a lot of people. The prison system needs to be reformed at the very least but until this model is shown to work on a manageable scale, people won't agree with it. If a state or county was willing to adopt it and test run it, it might actually get steam but no politician wants to be the person to do it in case it backfired
Jun 8, 2020·1 replySynopsisAccording to who
Where are all the wealthy burglars
There’s wealthy rapists and murderers though
Jun 8, 2020·editedIf this argument is being used to get more when it comes to reform I understand but to actually think this is a possibility in America is straight delusional
Jun 8, 2020hot pancakesThere’s wealthy rapists and murderers though
Wealthy Burglars
Jun 8, 2020·1 replyabolishment of the police on a large scale would be something similar to what saakashvili in georgia did, it's a big upheaval but not that radical of a concept.
that said abolishment in terms of what the far left proposes is generally dumb
we could and should completely abolish ICE tho
Jun 8, 2020it wouldn't
Jun 8, 2020the police unions control the politicians i don't know if through votes or monetarily.
it would be almost impossible to eliminate the police because of the powerful police unions.
plus most of the American politicians like the police, whether you're right or left. the only politician tone-deaf enough to believe in abolishing police would be like a Bernie sanders, who's too nutty to really get anywhere. i think he's a scam artist.
- Jun 8, 2020·1 replySolidSnaku
abolishment of the police on a large scale would be something similar to what saakashvili in georgia did, it's a big upheaval but not that radical of a concept.
that said abolishment in terms of what the far left proposes is generally dumb
we could and should completely abolish ICE tho
What is the far left proposing
Jun 8, 2020to a degree there is something to be said about police only being a placebo of protection for the average person given if you get mugged, it takes like 10-30 mins for the police to show up anyway, or if you get raped, you can't call the police beforehand anyway either, so it doesn't necessarily "stop" you from getting assaulted to begin with, it just acts as a theoretical deterrent for the person who would otherwise be arrested. most of what police ultimately do is less actively prevent crimes like rape, domestic violence, or murder, and more act as either deters for property-based crimes (i.e. arson, robbery), or enforcers of top-down policy crime (i.e. speeding or d****). i think any conversation about this should really be more nuanced and discuss things like this in the wider context they exist in rather than the policy alone, but that's a big ask in today's discourse lol
Jun 8, 2020- Jun 8, 2020·1 replySynopsis
What is the far left proposing
depending on who you ask it ranges from defunding the police and using the expenditures to better address needs for the populace or switching to community policing/militias
the first isn't that bad on the surface but it doesn't address the issue of criminality. people who have their needs met will still rape, steal, and murder. human nature is just a lot more nuanced than most think.
the second is an abysmally terrible idea that essentially turns the HOA into a police force. it would empower people like the killers of ahmaud arbery and turn them into a police force. there is so many things that can go wrong here.
- Jun 8, 2020·1 replySolidSnaku
depending on who you ask it ranges from defunding the police and using the expenditures to better address needs for the populace or switching to community policing/militias
the first isn't that bad on the surface but it doesn't address the issue of criminality. people who have their needs met will still rape, steal, and murder. human nature is just a lot more nuanced than most think.
the second is an abysmally terrible idea that essentially turns the HOA into a police force. it would empower people like the killers of ahmaud arbery and turn them into a police force. there is so many things that can go wrong here.
for someone who says that human nature is so much more nuanced than people think, it seems that you have just reduced it down to the idea that humans are naturally murderous, primal beasts who can't control their own greed.
- Jun 8, 2020Synopsis
for someone who says that human nature is so much more nuanced than people think, it seems that you have just reduced it down to the idea that humans are naturally murderous, primal beasts who can't control their own greed.
some people absolutely are
- Jun 8, 2020Swz3000
The final point is a really interesting one. I live in the UK so the principles behind arming police here basically follow what you’ve said - we have specific armed response units for major things, and police guarding politicians or other similar security type situations. The police you see here on a day to day basis just patrolling a neighbourhood or responding to 99% of crimes would only have a taser at the very most.
This works well and naturally to me the idea that something like speeding would be attended by an armed officer who could escalate to deadly force at any point is insane.
However - to some extent I feel like our system functions like this because the threat of gun crime is so low. There are hardly any firearms in the country and laws are so tight that, aside from a few select scenarios, any citizen carrying in a traffic stop scenario will be doing so completely illegally (likely with an illegaly owned weapon) and so on balance is probably a violent criminal.
So my question is, how do you apply this to the US, where anyone could have a weapon, even if it’s illegal to carry outside the home or whatever? How do you convince a police force that even though on balance the people they’re dealing with are more likely to own a gun(s) than not, including possibly some serious high powered s***, they shouldn’t be armed?
I’d do something like Watchmen where they had to get permission to unlock their pistol and have someone watching back at headquarters to monitor situation
Although I think most of the niggas illegally carrying wouldn’t just shoot a cop they prolly need it for day to day protection and handling their business and would probably just take the ticket and go. Only psychos would just kill a cop on some random unprovoked s***