I was talking about what a mob of people might do to an asshole who ran someone over. I bought The End of Policing for multiple people because it advocates replacing police with socialist policies. I don’t know how you misinterpreted my intent, but I’m also not accusing you of anything. It’s early and I have to go to work soon.
Do those socialist policies not rely on defensive violence as well?
I misinterpreted your intent because when someone says they “don’t condone violence” in the context of police brutality, it’s typically because they either
The book stipulates that providing free housing would reduce crime committed by people who are unhoused. It also advocates for free health care for people and social workers for people who suffer from mental illness. Some will refuse treatment, as we already know. But not all. The book does not say that crime will end. It does make ten (I think) excellent points as a chapter each about failures of policing to address social problems. And it has damning statistics to back up the claims.
It’s ridiculous that the richest nation in human history refuses to spend money on people in need other than for the purposes of enforcement. Doing so is counterproductive and wastes more money than just helping people. That’s my take.
I understand what you’re saying about building better systems. But how do you expect any system to uphold the law without violence? What do you do about the crime that persists?
Mob justice? I don’t condone violence. It would be better for the system to actually uphold the law. It won’t.
How do you expect any system to “uphold the law” without violence? Or are you just condoning police violence and not defense from police.
I was talking about what a mob of people might do to an asshole who ran someone over. I bought The End of Policing for multiple people because it advocates replacing police with socialist policies. I don’t know how you misinterpreted my intent, but I’m also not accusing you of anything. It’s early and I have to go to work soon.
Do those socialist policies not rely on defensive violence as well?
I misinterpreted your intent because when someone says they “don’t condone violence” in the context of police brutality, it’s typically because they either
don’t consider the police to be violence, or
are literally pacifists.
Well, the idea to provide free housing rather than policing the unhoused certainly didn’t.
I’m referring to how you were saying they could replace police.
The book stipulates that providing free housing would reduce crime committed by people who are unhoused. It also advocates for free health care for people and social workers for people who suffer from mental illness. Some will refuse treatment, as we already know. But not all. The book does not say that crime will end. It does make ten (I think) excellent points as a chapter each about failures of policing to address social problems. And it has damning statistics to back up the claims.
It’s ridiculous that the richest nation in human history refuses to spend money on people in need other than for the purposes of enforcement. Doing so is counterproductive and wastes more money than just helping people. That’s my take.
I understand what you’re saying about building better systems. But how do you expect any system to uphold the law without violence? What do you do about the crime that persists?