But to be serious all of human history and the way criminals currently operate even with a police force.
i mean, i hope you understand that “all of human history” is not a very compelling argument in response to “why do you assume people would commit crime if they knew they could get away with it”. people don’t just commit crimes for no reason. there are, for the vast majority of people, clear factors in why they commit crimes that don’t really have to do with Getting One Over on people and that can be socially addressed or disincentivized without any need for cops.
there are, for the vast majority of people, clear factors in why they commit crimes that don’t really have to do with Getting One Over on people and that can be socially addressed or disincentivized without any need for cops.
I agree, but can we deal with those issues? Like take drugs for example, can we fix all addicts? We can make treatment free but some addicts don’t want to be fixed, they have too much trauma, they’ve been through too much, they want to drug themselves to oblivion, and crime, theft specifically, will often be needed in that system. We can make drugs free and legal, but then they’ll be dead which is no win.
What about something more severe like domestic violence? If you take a man for example, who likes to control his partner through violence, there’s interventions that we can take to help, but they’re not perfect, we have better odds if we intervene with children, but that involves time travel.
Well first off, cops aren’t EMTs. Cops aren’t rehabilitating drug users. Cops aren’t preventing domestic abuse (quite the opposite, actually).
So what part of this equation do you think requires thousands of officers with guns in the first place? You brought up 2 issues that cops don’t solve, and then said, “and that’s why we needs cops!”
Nobody is talking about officers with guns. You seem to have a real america centric mind that’s unhelpful when discussing reform.
Now the scenarios I was speaking about you seem to be not reading the whole threads you’re replying to. So to recap, Alyaza said there are reasons that people commit crimes and those can be addressed without police, which I agreed with, but pointed out that some people don’t actually want their issues to be ‘fixed’ for various reasons, at which point crime will still exist.
Your reply is that we should treat the issues that lead to crime, which is just repeating Alyazas point not a reply to what I said.
All cops have guns, even if they don’t carry them around all the time.
I agreed with, but pointed out that some people don’t actually want their issues to be ‘fixed’ for various reasons, at which point crime will still exist.
And cops do not prevent crime, so it will still exist with them as well. And they’re not the only way to deal with crime, so your bringing them up just shows it’s the only system you can possible imagine.
And lastly, the narrative of “some people just want to be criminals” is a right-wing narrative that there is no evidence constitutes any real portion of criminals. Nearly all crime is crime of desperation. If a person suffering from a drug addiction doesn’t have to steal to get drugs, they won’t.
And lastly, the narrative of “some people just want to be criminals” is a right-wing narrative
Read my post. Not what I said whatsoever. The idea that everyone who takes drugs is just waiting to be ‘fixed’ comes from a place of extreme privilege. It’s very frustrating that you’re arguing against the points that you think might be happening rather than reading the thread or even my posts to you directly.
And again, I’ve asked you for your ‘alternative’ to policing and you don’t seem to have anything, outside of hiring different police from the community, but not calling them police, for reasons.
i mean, i hope you understand that “all of human history” is not a very compelling argument in response to “why do you assume people would commit crime if they knew they could get away with it”. people don’t just commit crimes for no reason. there are, for the vast majority of people, clear factors in why they commit crimes that don’t really have to do with Getting One Over on people and that can be socially addressed or disincentivized without any need for cops.
I agree, but can we deal with those issues? Like take drugs for example, can we fix all addicts? We can make treatment free but some addicts don’t want to be fixed, they have too much trauma, they’ve been through too much, they want to drug themselves to oblivion, and crime, theft specifically, will often be needed in that system. We can make drugs free and legal, but then they’ll be dead which is no win.
What about something more severe like domestic violence? If you take a man for example, who likes to control his partner through violence, there’s interventions that we can take to help, but they’re not perfect, we have better odds if we intervene with children, but that involves time travel.
Literally nothing that you brought up requires cops to solve.
What do you propose?
Well first off, cops aren’t EMTs. Cops aren’t rehabilitating drug users. Cops aren’t preventing domestic abuse (quite the opposite, actually).
So what part of this equation do you think requires thousands of officers with guns in the first place? You brought up 2 issues that cops don’t solve, and then said, “and that’s why we needs cops!”
Nobody is talking about officers with guns. You seem to have a real america centric mind that’s unhelpful when discussing reform.
Now the scenarios I was speaking about you seem to be not reading the whole threads you’re replying to. So to recap, Alyaza said there are reasons that people commit crimes and those can be addressed without police, which I agreed with, but pointed out that some people don’t actually want their issues to be ‘fixed’ for various reasons, at which point crime will still exist.
Your reply is that we should treat the issues that lead to crime, which is just repeating Alyazas point not a reply to what I said.
All cops have guns, even if they don’t carry them around all the time.
And cops do not prevent crime, so it will still exist with them as well. And they’re not the only way to deal with crime, so your bringing them up just shows it’s the only system you can possible imagine.
And lastly, the narrative of “some people just want to be criminals” is a right-wing narrative that there is no evidence constitutes any real portion of criminals. Nearly all crime is crime of desperation. If a person suffering from a drug addiction doesn’t have to steal to get drugs, they won’t.
Read my post. Not what I said whatsoever. The idea that everyone who takes drugs is just waiting to be ‘fixed’ comes from a place of extreme privilege. It’s very frustrating that you’re arguing against the points that you think might be happening rather than reading the thread or even my posts to you directly.
And again, I’ve asked you for your ‘alternative’ to policing and you don’t seem to have anything, outside of hiring different police from the community, but not calling them police, for reasons.
What part of “police are agents of state authority, mutual-defence groups are not” is hard to understand?
How did you turn me saying
into me saying we’d fix them being addicted to drugs?