*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm glad someone gets it.

Sidestepping the conversation because the nuclear option is stupid is intellectually bereft, man.

[OngBonga]

No, I'm not. I'm not talking about irrational nonsense that will never happen.

Well we're talking about different things then. I don't expect the police to be abolished, but oskar has basically suggested he supports it. So it's a discussion.

I am saying that the assumption that people need police to have law and order is factually not born out by any view of the history of jurisprudence.

I don't doubt it. Let me ask... do you think society is better today than it was 1000 years ago? Do you think that enforcing law and order on the street plays an important role in shaping our society into one where we are, for the most part, safe? Do you think without enforcement, we would be as safe as we are?

I looked into my assumptions (which were in line with yours) and I was surprised to find that not only is there research, there's a wealth of compelling research that indicates I was and you are wrong about things.

I don't doubt I'm wrong about things, and I'm not bothered enough about that to research something that only interests me enough to talk about.

No, not for those reasons. The notion that a standing police force is a "normal" thing that people need in order to live in a lawful society is only about 150-ish years old. Humans have lived in civilized societies supporting tens of thousands of people for many thousands of years.

Poverty plays a role. There are more people living in poverty today than existed in the world 150 years ago. I haven't fact checked that but I'd put serious money on that statement. But you're right, it's not for those reasons alone. There are countless reasons.

You'd think, but no. It's not as if poverty or crime are inventions of the last 200 years.

Of course not, it's just more of a problem as population increases. There are so many things that are different compared to 200 years ago that we can't even look back that near into our history to compare civilisations. Just having access to a vehicle makes it a great deal easier to commit crime. Also guns. Computers and technology. Crime evolves as we evolve.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of law and order, but there's a modern view that either you have police and law and order or you have no police and no law and no order, but historically, it just doesn't bear out that way.

I'm not disputing this. I'm saying you can't use this as evidence that we don't need police today in our society. I think we've reached a point where law and order does need to be enforced.

The thing about you saying the punishment deters you from growing weed in your home is that... you didn't specify the length of prison sentence which deters you. The mere presence of a prison sentence is enough. It doesn't matter if it's 1 year or 5 years or whatever, any prison sentence is enough to deter you.

Kind of. If I knew I could get away with three months in a low security prison with fraudsters and thieves then that wouldn't concern me as much as doing six months plus with nonces and terrorists. But yeah, prison for any length of time is a deterrent.

I'd guess that if the standards and punishments in our society were different, then you'd find another excuse to follow the rules.

I doubt it.

I mean, I've grown weed before. Living with the constant paranoia is not easy. You're worried about the neighbours catching a smell, the landlord paying a visit, you're curtain twitching when you hear a car. I doubt I'd even go to prison for a first offence, based on the scale I worked at. But I don't just have that to worry about. I have eviction too, and there's a constant fire risk when you're using that much electricity. The threat of prison isn't all that stops me. But if I was certain that I could get away with it, then of course I would grow.

Because you're not a hardened criminal, you will find a reason to not commit crimes.

I don't see growing weed as committing a crime. I know it is, but it doesn't feel like it because it's not something I consider to be immoral. For the most part, my morals correlate with law, that's why I'm not a hardened criminal. It's not due to respect of law, it's because I haven't got the balls to rob a bank, and haven't got the heart to rob an individual.

Your response to the suggestion that we consider the actual cost-benefit analysis of a government program is that you're afraid that you might conclude to abolish that program - which makes you uncomfortable, so you'd rather not even look at it?

I'm still arguing that we shouldn't abolish the police. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't reform the police, or reconsider their budget and what value we get from it.

Humans are complicated. We're a lot of things. We were not simply savages with no love when we lived in a time before police.

Of course we're not. But it only takes a few bad people to turn our society into one that isn't a nice place to live. Our western societies are wonderfully safe compared to some places in the world. I don't really want to fuck with that.

I'm merely suggesting that the benefit that is most widely assumed by the vast majority of people is very conclusively false. The benefit we think we get, we do not get. That is the fact. So, I'm asking, "what benefits do we get for the cost?" I'm not asking it ironicaly or hypothetically. I'm asking it for real.

I don't think it is conclusively false. You're making this determination based on incomparable times in history. Before police, there were other mechanisms in place to maintain law and order. Lynch mobs (lol), kingsmen, historically people tend to be bonded by common religion and so sinners become outcasts, banned from the church, shunned by the community. There were still consequences to being an asshole. These consequences aren't so relevant today, in modern society. People aren't going to be deterred by that.

The benefit we get from the police is law and order. Does every society need it? Probably not, but I sincerely believe my society does, and yours too. Without it, serious social crime like burglary will increase, and petty crime like shoplifting. I can't support that with figures because there are no examples I'm aware of where a large western society has completely taken police off the streets. But it seems like common sense to me. If burglars know there will be no quick response to calls, they will feel emboldened.

[OngBonga]

Why pay someone to walk or drive around aimlessly? I'm sure you would need a lot fewer police if none of them were busy patrolling.

Visible presence. Some people find it reassuring, a reminder they live in a safe society. Other people find it unnerving, usually because they're up to no good. But also because you want cops to be able to respond to any area of the city quickly.

What do you mean "primed?"

I mean already out and about, rather than enjoying a nice cup of tea in the station. Putting your coat on, going to the car, how long does that take? A minute? Two minutes? That's response time wasted.

Everyone knows the police exist.

Yes, fine, but it's a reminder to anyone thinking about crime that there are people out there who have the authority to take action. I can tell you from past experience living in a shithole town that Friday and Saturday night when pubs are closing, I'm happy to see police about because it means any dickheads looking for a fight or someone to mug will reconsider their plans.

[Poopadoop]

Visible presence. Some people find it reassuring, a reminder they live in a safe society. Other people find it unnerving, usually because they're up to no good.

Or because they tend to face a lot of harrassment from the police.

But also because you want cops to be able to respond to any area of the city quickly.

That's great if someone is very slowly committing a murder or whatever.

I mean already out and about, rather than enjoying a nice cup of tea in the station. Putting your coat on, going to the car, how long does that take? A minute? Two minutes? That's response time wasted.

Again, this is only important if they actually can arrive in time to affect the outcome. Most crimes are either over by the time the cops get there, or they aren't urgent. The cops getting to a burglary in a hurry doesn't happen whether they're out in patrol cars or not, for example.

I can tell you from past experience living in a shithole town that Friday and Saturday night when pubs are closing, I'm happy to see police about because it means any dickheads looking for a fight or someone to mug will reconsider their plans.

I'm talking about regular patrols, not crowd control. Sure if you have a mass of drunken people pouring out of the pubs at closing time, or out of a football match, have some cops around. The rest of the time, nah.

[oskar]

Sidestepping the conversation because the nuclear option is stupid is intellectually bereft, man.

Though I do agree, I want to point out the irony of calling a figurative nuclear option stupid while thinking private citizens should be allowed to own actual nukes.

I said it's not a worthwhile agenda. I think it would be fine to abolish police, but you can count yourself lucky if they decrease funding by 20% of the next decade, so any talk of abolishing is a waste of everyone's time.