26
Libertarian becomes lawyer, appreciates police
(www.lesswrong.com)
Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.
AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)
This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.
[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]
NSFW time! I am continually floored by the sheer lack of nuance that these folks have. Here, my guy is conflating three separate concepts:
Don't get me wrong; some law enforcement is necessary in a lawful society. Try having a trial court without a bailiff, for example. But it sounds like our dude is a recovering ancap, and he just can't see shades of grey.
I spent ages writing a comment that I accidentally deleted (>_>) so apologies if this is a bit too long:
I've read that a lot of violent urban crime in the US takes place in poor, majority-minority or majority-black neighbourhoods. Those neighbourhoods are "overpoliced and underprotected" areas where cops rarely respond to crime reports & rarely go unless they are conducting a raid in SWAT gear, & people rarely make crime reports either because they don't expect the police to do anything or expect them to make things worse if they do turn up.
Increase police funding, decrease police funding, it doesn't change the approach the police take to those neighbourhoods & it doesn't change the social, political or historic factors that determine the relationship between neighbourhoods and the police.
& re: defunding, surely a libertarian should understand that government money is not a bottomless bucket....Some (not all) cities facing budget issues have increased police funding while cutting mental healthcare, social services or other parts of the safety net. this has 2 effects
As a non-American unversed in American political rhetoric, "defund the police" always struck me as a weird call for action. Read without nuance it basically means "don't pay for policing", not "reduce the relative funding going to LE in favor of other funding".
it's not a great slogan. In the summer of 2020 there was a mad rush to find a slogan that was radical enough to be credible but not too radical to be popular. It was a bodge.
@gerikson It’s also really about changing the things that the police do get funded for over and above the fixed line items for salary, uniforms, thin blue line patches, squad cars, donuts etc. Fund them for better screening to weed out control freaks and all the other people who shouldn’t be cops. Fund them for week-long courses in situation management, unconscious bias, deescalation, and basic psychology with a passing grade a condition of continued employment. Fund them to train and maintain a small, highly professional and highly skilled tactical intervention unit rather than giving every bozo who can’t even write a ticket correctly a two-day course and a shotgun and calling them the SWAT team. Don’t fund them for what they are way overfunded for in the US - military surplus tanks, armoured cars, tactical gear, offensive weapons they should never need but will end up using anyway because they’re there, and poor quality paramilitary training. Properly fund community services, 24 hour mental health crisis teams and addiction / homeless / etc outreach. Build proper inter-agency responses to mental health crises. Do this and you’ll save more money and save more lives than pretending you’re in a real life Call of Duty.
But hey, Chief says we can get a tank and a margarita machine out of the training budget instead of this classroom bullshit they want us to do! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Yeah sure, I get that. I just meant that as a slogan, "defund the police" can be misread as "abolish the police".
Cap the wells, scrap the equipment, fuck the shareholders. Every day they make the deliberate decision not to do that, and dig us deeper into this mess.