[Unthinking Majority]

No. You merely repeated the theory, but you did not show that police act as a deterrent.



No, most countries did not (and do not) have protection from the USA or Russia. In fact, these are the two countries that most often attack others.

Nor do I think that colonialism created peace.

This entire post seems to be based in incorrect premises.

Saying "no" isn't an argument. I also never said colonialism created peace.

[ckaihatsu]

Spoiler: show

ISSUER

AUTOMATIC TIMESTAMP UPON RECEIPT (YYYYMMDDHHMM)

ACTIVE DATE (YYYYMMDD)

FORMAL-ITEM REFERENCED (OR AUTOMATICALLY CREATED), IF ANY

FORMAL-ITEM NUMERICAL INCREMENT, 001-999, PER DAY, PER UNIQUE GEOGRAPHIC UNIT

GEOGRAPHIC LEVEL INTENDED-FOR ('HSH', 'ENT', 'LCL', RGN', 'CTN', 'GBL')

GEOGRAPHIC SOURCE UNIQUE NAME, ABBREVIATED

FIRSTNAME_LASTNAME_BIRTHYEAR(YY)

INDIVIDUAL'S ITEM RANKING, 0001-9999 (PER DAY)

RANK-ITEM TYPE ('INI', 'DMN', 'PRP', 'PRJ', PDR', 'FND', 'DTI', 'LLI', 'PLP', 'ORD', 'REQ', 'SLD')

TITLE-DESCRIPTION


WORK ROLE NUMBER AND TITLE

TENTATIVE OR ACTUAL HAZARD / DIFFICULTY MULTIPLIER

ESTIMATE-OF OR ACTUAL LABOR HOURS PER SCHEDULED WORK SHIFT

TOTAL LABOR CREDITS (MULTIPLIER TIMES HOURS)

ACTUAL FUNDING OF LABOR CREDITS PER WORK SHIFT (FUNDING ITEM REFERENCE REQUIRED)

SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, BEGINNING DATE & TIME

SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, ENDING DATE & TIME

AVAILABLE-AND-SELECTED LIBERATED LABORER IDENTIFIER


DENOMINATION

QUANTITY, PER DENOMINATION

TOTAL LABOR CREDITS PER DENOMINATION

SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, BEGINNING

SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, ENDING

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338

[ckaihatsu]

(Recall that UM likes to get waaaaaayyy high up on the pole and look down.)

[Pants-of-dog]

Saying "no" isn't an argument. I also never said colonialism created peace.

You are claiming that government acts as an enforcer of morality, and does so by using the threat of violence (i.e. police) as a deterrent.

I am familiar with this theory. I am not sure it is actually true. I think it is true for very basic criminality, such as not committing petty crimes while in full view of a police officer, but has no significant impact on most crime or other immoral behaviour.

This is my conclusion after looking at the evidence over the years. If you have further evidence, please let me know.

[Unthinking Majority]

You are claiming that government acts as an enforcer of morality, and does so by using the threat of violence (i.e. police) as a deterrent.

I am familiar with this theory. I am not sure it is actually true. I think it is true for very basic criminality, such as not committing petty crimes while in full view of a police officer, but has no significant impact on most crime or other immoral behaviour.

This is my conclusion after looking at the evidence over the years. If you have further evidence, please let me know.

San Francisco and the West Coast of the US are good examples where soft crime laws have increased crime:

We probably shouldn’t call it shoplifting anymore, since that term connotes the idea of a person trying to conceal their crime. In San Francisco, there is no attempt to conceal theft, and there is almost never any effort by store employees, including security personnel, to confront the thieves. The most they do is record the thefts with their cell phones.

Why is shoplifting so rampant? Because state law holds that stealing merchandise worth $950 or less is just a misdemeanor, which means that law enforcement probably won’t bother to investigate, and if they do, prosecutors will let it go.
...
Crime is rising almost everywhere in California, including violent crime. Homicides in California jumped 31 percent last year, making 2020 the deadliest year since 2007. The 2,202 homicides in 2020 represent an increase of 523 over 2019. Homicides in Los Angeles rose 40 percent to 332, and they rose 35 percent to 285 in San Francisco. Both San Francisco and Los Angeles feature district attorneys who are perceived to be soft on crime, and both are facing the possibility of a recall election. Gives a whole new take on defunding police, doesn’t it?

These increases put the spotlight on California’s recent legal change that provides shorter sentences for prisoners, including violent felons, largely because of budgetary issues (California prison costs are among the highest in the country at $81,000 annually per prisoner), and also on Newsom’s decision to suspend the state’s death penalty law via executive order.

California will allow 63,000 prisoners, out of a population of 115,000, the possibility of early release.

https://www.hoover.org/research/why-sho ... california

Coffee retailer Starbucks, which is countering a growing unionization movement among its baristas, is now grappling with another problem: crime.

This week, company officials announced that they are closing 16 U.S. stores out of concern for the safety of its employees – referred to in the company as “partners.” Starbucks is permanently shuttering six stores each in Seattle and Los Angeles; two in Portland, Ore.; and single locations in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/st ... 71422.html

I don't find it curious at all that most of these stores are located on the West coast where they are softer on crime due to the lawmakers being more leftwing in the cities/states.

Here's Why San Francisco is Experiencing a Shoplifting Surge That’s Putting Some Stores Out of Business

“Representatives from Walgreens said that thefts at its stores in San Francisco were four times the chain’s national average, and that it had closed 17 stores, largely because the scale of thefts had made business untenable,” Fuller reports. Meanwhile, CVS told him that San Francisco had become “one of the epicenters of organized retail crime” and that the chain has scaled back its security guards’ shoplifting enforcement because it’s become so dangerous.
...
You might understandably be wondering: What the heck is going on? In 2014, a ballot referendum passed that downgraded the theft of property less than $950 in value from a felony charge to a misdemeanor. In the years since, enforcement of shoplifting charges has waned significantly.

“It has become part of the landscape,” local politician Ahsha Safaí remarked of the shoplifting. “People say, ‘Oh, well, that just happens. [Thieves] are obviously choosing locales based on what the consequences are. there are no consequences for their actions, then you invite the behavior. Over and over.”
...
One study found that in Santa Monica, California, crimes unaffected by the ballot referendum fell by 9 percent but those that were downgraded increased 15 percent. Another analysis found that statewide, larceny thefts increased 9 percent after the 2014 change.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what’s going on here. Many different factors impact crime rates, but when the government fails to protect property rights and enforce the law, theft becomes more common and innocent business owners are victimized. The resulting economic uncertainty discourages growth and, in extreme cases like San Francisco, literally leads stores to close. 

https://fee.org/articles/why-san-franci ... -business/

[Pants-of-dog]

San Francisco and the West Coast of the US are good examples where soft crime laws have increased crime:

I very much doubt you will find evidence of a causative relationship.

https://www.hoover.org/research/why-sho ... california

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/st ... 71422.html

I don't find it curious at all that most of these stores are located on the West coast where they are softer on crime due to the lawmakers being more leftwing in the cities/states.


https://fee.org/articles/why-san-franci ... -business/

Yes, I read all this fodder when @BlutoSays put it all into threads.

I did not notice him providing any evidence of this casual relationship, and what you repeated from him also has no evidence of a causal relationship.

[Unthinking Majority]

I very much doubt you will find evidence of a causative relationship.




Yes, I read all this fodder when @BlutoSays put it all into threads.

I did not notice him providing any evidence of this casual relationship, and what you repeated from him also has no evidence of a causal relationship.

You're free to believe as you wish. The evidence is clear that politicians and judges you think similar to you on law and order create more crime due to their weak policies.

[Pants-of-dog]

You're free to believe as you wish. The evidence is clear that politicians and judges you think similar to you on law and order create more crime due to their weak policies.

Actually, the evidence shows that longer sentences have a slight tendency to increase recidivism.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrc ... ex-en.aspx

Also, I am not “soft on crime”. At this point, I am more or less in the abolition camp. I do not wish to merely defund the police. I think we should try to eventually get rid of them entirely.

[Unthinking Majority]

Actually, the evidence shows that longer sentences have a slight tendency to increase recidivism.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrc ... ex-en.aspx

Also, I am not “soft on crime”. At this point, I am more or less in the abolition camp. I do not wish to merely defund the police. I think we should try to eventually get rid of them entirely.

Topics like longer sentences and mandatory minimums is a different issue than no sentences, which is what you're arguing.

How are you not soft on crime if you wish to remove the police entirely? What is your proposed disincentive for breaking the law? In 2014 police shot an armed man who entered the Canadian legislature who was looking to kill politicians after he had shot and killed a solider guarding a war grave monument minutes beforehand. 4 years later an incel in Toronto was driving into women on the sidewalk and was stopped & arrested by police minutes later.

Who stops things like this? Sometimes police are incompetent and don't do their jobs, but many times they do, and their jobs are vital. Otherwise anyone can shoot anyone else and typically it can only be stopped with violence. It's much better for cops to have the monopoly on violence than citizens. When citizens are highly armed and try to stop this violence themselves, like they do in the US and throughout Central America, gun violence increases dramatically.

[Pants-of-dog]

Topics like longer sentences and mandatory minimums is a different issue than no sentences, which is what you're arguing.

How are you not soft on crime if you wish to remove the police entirely? What is your proposed disincentive for breaking the law? In 2014 police shot an armed man who entered the Canadian legislature who was looking to kill politicians after he had shot and killed a solider guarding a war grave monument minutes beforehand. 4 years later an incel in Toronto was driving into women on the sidewalk and was stopped & arrested by police minutes later.

Who stops things like this? Sometimes police are incompetent and don't do their jobs, but many times they do, and their jobs are vital. Otherwise anyone can shoot anyone else and typically it can only be stopped with violence. It's much better for cops to have the monopoly on violence than citizens. When citizens are highly armed and try to stop this violence themselves, like they do in the US and throughout Central America, gun violence increases dramatically.

I notice you are no longer trying to support your argument that cops enforce morality and help people.

Now you are making a new argument that cops do a better job of containing anti-social violence than other people.

I think this argument is also incorrect.

[Unthinking Majority]

I notice you are no longer trying to support your argument that cops enforce morality and help people.

Now you are making a new argument that cops do a better job of containing anti-social violence than other people.

I think this argument is also incorrect.

That's been my argument all along. I don't recall ever specifically claiming "cops enforce morality" or "help people", that's your interpretation of my argument and your words.

As i've said, if you have anarchy it means there's no central power stopping people from doing whatever they want, including violence, theft, rape etc. That means people have to perform the self-defense from violence themselves, or they need to form groups to use their combined power for protection.

THe job of cops is to enforce laws. Laws are rules typically designed to provide fairness and order in society so it's not a dog-eat-dog situation where might = right.

The international system is anarchy and therefore dog-eat-dog, which means it's everyone for themselves. So everyone formed countries to provide protection for themselves from others, and created a military to protect themselves from "rival gangs" or made alliances with other countries that have a military for the same purpose.

What you didn't answer is my question of if we disband the police as you propose, what will stop people when they want to murder or otherwise treat other people unjustly? What would prevent a business from mistreating their employees? Anywhere there is power there is potential for abuse of power. I think the abuse of power by cops that occurs, while very unjust, is less harmful to society than the abuse of power that many others in society would commit if cops didn't exist.

[ckaihatsu]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... ing_Israel

[Pants-of-dog]

That's been my argument all along. I don't recall ever specifically claiming "cops enforce morality" or "help people", that's your interpretation of my argument and your words.

Cops do not even make people follow laws.

They certainly do not protect people.

As i've said, if you have anarchy it means there's no central power stopping people from doing whatever they want, including violence, theft, rape etc. That means people have to perform the self-defense from violence themselves, or they need to form groups to use their combined power for protection.

THe job of cops is to enforce laws. Laws are rules typically designed to provide fairness and order in society so it's not a dog-eat-dog situation where might = right.

The international system is anarchy and therefore dog-eat-dog, which means it's everyone for themselves. So everyone formed countries to provide protection for themselves from others, and created a military to protect themselves from "rival gangs" or made alliances with other countries that have a military for the same purpose.

What you didn't answer is my question of if we disband the police as you propose, what will stop people when they want to murder or otherwise treat other people unjustly? What would prevent a business from mistreating their employees? Anywhere there is power there is potential for abuse of power. I think the abuse of power by cops that occurs, while very unjust, is less harmful to society than the abuse of power that many others in society would commit if cops didn't exist.

Laws are not designed to be fair.

Do you think laws against loitering are aimed at all people in society equally? Drug laws? Even traffic laws here in Edmonton are specifically set up to target poorer people.

There is a reason why it is against the laws for a worker to steal from the company but in many jurisdictions it is not a crime for a company refuse to pay its workers.

[Unthinking Majority]

Cops do not even make people follow laws.

They certainly do not protect people.

The vast majority of people who are driving over the speed limit and then see a cop driving on the same road will slow down to obey the speed limit. This proves your claim is incorrect.

Laws are not designed to be fair.

Do you think laws against loitering are aimed at all people in society equally? Drug laws? Even traffic laws here in Edmonton are specifically set up to target poorer people.

There is a reason why it is against the laws for a worker to steal from the company but in many jurisdictions it is not a crime for a company refuse to pay its workers.

This is a gross overgeneralization. I also never said all laws are fair, anticipating this counterargument I specifically said " Laws are rules typically designed to provide fairness and order in society". Obviously there's exceptions.

Also, just because a law in practical terms will apply to some groups over others doesn't make them unfair. Higher taxes can apply more to wealthier people than poor people, it doesn't necessarily make them "unfair".

[Potemkin]

Laws are not designed to be fair.

Do you think laws against loitering are aimed at all people in society equally? Drug laws? Even traffic laws here in Edmonton are specifically set up to target poorer people.

There is a reason why it is against the laws for a worker to steal from the company but in many jurisdictions it is not a crime for a company refuse to pay its workers.

Sometimes it is the very ‘equality’ of the law which is the source of the unfairness. As Anatole France famously put it, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

[Pants-of-dog]

The vast majority of people who are driving over the speed limit and then see a cop driving on the same road will slow down to obey the speed limit. This proves your claim is incorrect.

Note that I already mentioned that this is the only way cops stop crime: by simply being present when someone is about to commit a petty crime in the open.

Cops do not stop the vast majority of crime.

This is a gross overgeneralization. I also never said all laws are fair, anticipating this counterargument I specifically said " Laws are rules typically designed to provide fairness and order in society". Obviously there's exceptions.

Even this general trend is not true. For example, the entirety of laws concerning Indigenous people in Canada are specifically set up to disempower Indigenous communities and make it impossible for them to reclaim their land.

Also, just because a law in practical terms will apply to some groups over others doesn't make them unfair. Higher taxes can apply more to wealthier people than poor people, it doesn't necessarily make them "unfair".

Why not?

The whole concept of fairness in a capitalist system is ridiculous anyway. Especially when we have the history we do.

[BlutoSays]

I very much doubt you will find evidence of a causative relationship.




Yes, I read all this fodder when @BlutoSays put it all into threads.

I did not notice him providing any evidence of this casual relationship, and what you repeated from him also has no evidence of a causal relationship.

[Pants-of-dog]

@BlutoSays

Please define “causal”.

Thank you.

[BlutoSays]

@BlutoSays

Please define “causal”.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/BJS_PUB/rpr24s0810y ... ant%20PDFs

[Pants-of-dog]

You're welcome.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/BJS_PUB/rpr24s0810y ... ant%20PDFs

I think you did not read this.

And you do not seem to know what “causal” means.