Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

2ways to stop crime:cops or freedom

Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2010 11:37:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is a respone to one of Ragnar's posts in another forum:

Rob wrote
Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
We shouldn't "sleep easy" tonight thinking that the killers are not going to sneak in our windows because police are going to prevent them - there's little chance they will!
Direct prevention isn't what they are for. It is, after all, far more likely that after any given crime, the people will be caught. This "doesn't do the victim any good." Except that there are fewer victims as a result, because fewer people want to commit crimes.

Ragnar has, probably for the first time in that particular thread, gotten to what I consider the meat of the discussion.

"fewer people want to commit crimes" is what any system would be after, no? How you prevent those crimes is the question. So, I'd like to know where everyone stands as far as what is the best way to stop crime.

Society's idea: put cops out to scare the people into nonviolence

This is obviously what my opponents are putting forth; police are a disincentive to crime. Nothing less, nothing more. Ragnar stated that the police are not for "direct protection" and people don't think that smidget through when they support that institution. Police are nothing more than a

disincentive to crime, by means of arresting individuals who break the law

they are not, as implied by most of the people in the other thread, a

disincentive to crime, by means of employing officers of the law who work to prevent crime

Once you believe that police are there to "protect you against crime," in my opinion, you are standing on a slippery slope which leads to corruption of authority, not to mention conditioning of the "protected" people.

One might say that police are "detectives" but think clearly about the situation; detecting is not a function of law and arrest. Not in the least. Putting a governmental entity in charge of both the detecting and the arresting entities is just a breeding ground for corruption - there's just no way to have an honest system like that, much for the reason the Stanford Prison Study pointed out.

My idea: give the people as much freedom as possible so that they may not wish to be as violent. This would be defined as

disincentive to crime, by means of empowerment over one's own life

Which school of thought would you adhere to, and why?

Would you agree that society generally believes that justice is actually being served to the victims of familys who are victims of criminals? If so, what effects would this have on their perception of whether or not police are "good" or not.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 1:37:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Violent crimes are not the only kind.

On an anecdotal note, the only reason I haven't killed anyone yet is because I fear the law. Your system of freedom wouldn't stop me, and it wouldn't stop those that commit violent crimes of passion, which is a common type.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 1:44:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Unless I'm reading your post wrong. It does imply the abolition of governmntal law enforcement, correct?
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 6:20:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't understand how simply giving people freedom will reduce crime, oh sure if you legalise all drugs then you have technically reduced crime, but lets talk about real crimes, in which there are actual unwilling victims.

Does more freedom prevent muggings, assault, rape and murder? No.

Were these crimes less frequent when we had well funded and large police forces and actual punishment. Yes.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 11:10:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Rob, you spent 3/4's of your initial post explaining - on the one hand you have... Then on your proposed hand you simply assert that freedom in unspecified, or perhaps absolute? amounts will somehow dissuade crime. You need to substantiate your claim a bit more.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 12:12:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
korashk - if you had murdered someone, which i seriously doubt you have the balls to do mr internet toughguy, you would not find that life just goes on as usual - you assume like many others wrongly, that police are the only preventative force against violence. police, in fact do not prevent crime, they only come into play after the crime has been committed. cn&inn: abolishing currency eliminates oppression, which reduces crime. im on my phone right now so i cant write much but i've had this conversation with both of you before...
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 12:22:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 12:12:30 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
korashk - if you had murdered someone, which i seriously doubt you have the balls to do mr internet toughguy, you would not find that life just goes on as usual - you assume like many others wrongly, that police are the only preventative force against violence. police, in fact do not prevent crime, they only come into play after the crime has been committed. cn&inn: abolishing currency eliminates oppression, which reduces crime. im on my phone right now so i cant write much but i've had this conversation with both of you before...

And how do you propose we abolish currency? If government was abolished, as you advocate, government currencies would be effectively abolished, but other currencies such as gold and silver would take their place. It's not like money was a creation of government; government took over once gold and silver were already established as money. Why wouldn't precious metals or other commodities just replace the old currencies in a stateless society, just as they became currencies before government money?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 2:37:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 12:12:30 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
korashk - if you had murdered someone, which i seriously doubt you have the balls to do mr internet toughguy, you would not find that life just goes on as usual - you assume like many others wrongly, that police are the only preventative force against violence. police, in fact do not prevent crime, they only come into play after the crime has been committed.

And then punish the offenders.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 3:18:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 12:12:30 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
korashk - if you had murdered someone, which i seriously doubt you have the balls to do mr internet toughguy, you would not find that life just goes on as usual - you assume like many others wrongly, that police are the only preventative force against violence. police, in fact do not prevent crime, they only come into play after the crime has been committed. cn&inn: abolishing currency eliminates oppression, which reduces crime.:

The premise doesn't follow. Currency is simply an attempt to make a universal value system. But people will still have their own sense of value. Tribes from all over the world made their own arbitrary currency in the form of trading goods. If you were to eliminate paper currency, humans would simply revert back to more archaic forms of payment.

Secondly, even without money, goods are still a commodity which has intrinsic value. The desire for warm clothes when cold is not somehow going to magically disappear when the money is gone. The desire for food when hungry is not going to magically disappear when the money is gone. If you're the only guy with an apple tree within 50 square miles, and the people are hungry, they're going to want some of those apples. They will either barter with you or they will simply take it by force.

In a world that chaotic, it's bound to be more violent, not less.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 3:51:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 12:12:30 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
korashk - if you had murdered someone, which i seriously doubt you have the balls to do mr internet toughguy, you would not find that life just goes on as usual - you assume like many others wrongly, that police are the only preventative force against violence. police, in fact do not prevent crime, they only come into play after the crime has been committed. cn&inn: abolishing currency eliminates oppression, which reduces crime. im on my phone right now so i cant write much but i've had this conversation with both of you before...

Abolishing currency simply leads to a shite economy. Either a barter system or the collectivisation of resources. In the former people are still coerced into production due to wanting stuff... like food. In the latter people are coerced into production due to a guy with a gun. Currency makes life easier.

Currency or no currency many crimes will still exist, and when they do we need a better way of resolving the issue than a lynch mob.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 3:54:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 1:37:08 AM, Korashk wrote:
Violent crimes are not the only kind.

An excellent point korashk! As I am explaining my economic system below, watch for the part where my opponents start saying "crimes based on money/property rights are not the only kind." You see, my system accounts for property crimes EVEN BETTER than the ones you are indirectly acquiescing to with your comment.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 3:56:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 3:54:06 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
At 9/18/2010 1:37:08 AM, Korashk wrote:
Violent crimes are not the only kind.

An excellent point korashk! As I am explaining my economic system below, watch for the part where my opponents start saying "crimes based on money/property rights are not the only kind." You see, my system accounts for property crimes EVEN BETTER than the ones you are indirectly acquiescing to with your comment.

Though my system may seem unworkable I would like to draw your attention to invisible wizards who will magically wand wave all apparent problems away.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 4:19:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
OK I am just going to address you all in one post as you all are prett much saying the same thing - abolishing currency will just lead to barter, will just lead to gold etc, will just lead to crap economy, will just lead to chaos. Did I forget anyone in there?

Of course, if we just removed money tonight this would all be true - we would end up bartering and an alternative currency would quickly fill the vacuum. However, if we lived in independent sustainable communities where all the goods we used were provided by our own community locally, and no one was forced to work to gain purchasing power, things would be very different. Goods would not be purchased, they would simply be acquired for free. There would be no rich or poor, as everyone would have access to about the same level of goods and services, which would all be available to everyone. There would be no "property rights" so there would be no need for property laws and no need for law enforcement to protect the rich from having their hoards stolen and given back to the people who created the wealth that they are saving for themselves. Police and money go hand in hand and while you can't have money without police, you can get rid of money and therefore the need for police. I'm not talking about making heinous actions legitimate and thus decreasing what can be punished, I am talking about removing the motives that exist for violence and theft - our current system is a breeding grounds for it. Just watch a rap video and see how black culture has absorbed our values; these people don't have a clue that anything they are doing is wrong, and neither do we. Flaunting dollar bills and gold, wasting ridiculous amounts of resources on a luxury automobile and having a general "fvck you, it's mine because I made it myself (even if it wasn't acquired legitimately)" attitude is simply accepted. If someone "provides" for their family they are revered in our society. It doesn't matter if they provide by working hard and producing resources, by simply ripping people off in sales, or just inhereting the money - all we care about it the money itself.

We can change all this and make the production of resources the main idea, instead of simply how much wealth you have. In a system where you are not forced to work, whether through law (comm/socialism) or through poverty (capitalism), the community starts concerning itself more with valuing its members based on their contributions. IOWs, a person with a luxury auto, who is not productive, is seen as less honorable than a man dressed in rags who works hard but just does not care for material goods. It's really funny that the predominate religion in this country idolizes just a man, yet turns right around and sneers at the man in rags in real life while paying respect to the person in the Cadilac Escalade who makes his wealth convincing others to waste their money on goods that don't do society any real benefit.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 4:27:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Your system involves requiring everyone in the entire world to agree to it. Therefore it wouldn't work. For instance, how would criminal justice be handled? There would still be crime, despite what you think about your utopian idealistic stsyem.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 4:28:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 4:19:41 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
OK I am just going to address you all in one post as you all are prett much saying the same thing - abolishing currency will just lead to barter, will just lead to gold etc, will just lead to crap economy, will just lead to chaos. Did I forget anyone in there?

Of course, if we just removed money tonight this would all be true - we would end up bartering and an alternative currency would quickly fill the vacuum. However, if we lived in independent sustainable communities where all the goods we used were provided by our own community locally, and no one was forced to work to gain purchasing power, things would be very different. Goods would not be purchased, they would simply be acquired for free. There would be no rich or poor, as everyone would have access to about the same level of goods and services, which would all be available to everyone. There would be no "property rights" so there would be no need for property laws and no need for law enforcement to protect the rich from having their hoards stolen and given back to the people who created the wealth that they are saving for themselves. Police and money go hand in hand and while you can't have money without police, you can get rid of money and therefore the need for police. I'm not talking about making heinous actions legitimate and thus decreasing what can be punished, I am talking about removing the motives that exist for violence and theft - our current system is a breeding grounds for it. Just watch a rap video and see how black culture has absorbed our values; these people don't have a clue that anything they are doing is wrong, and neither do we. Flaunting dollar bills and gold, wasting ridiculous amounts of resources on a luxury automobile and having a general "fvck you, it's mine because I made it myself (even if it wasn't acquired legitimately)" attitude is simply accepted. If someone "provides" for their family they are revered in our society. It doesn't matter if they provide by working hard and producing resources, by simply ripping people off in sales, or just inhereting the money - all we care about it the money itself.

We can change all this and make the production of resources the main idea, instead of simply how much wealth you have. In a system where you are not forced to work, whether through law (comm/socialism) or through poverty (capitalism), the community starts concerning itself more with valuing its members based on their contributions. IOWs, a person with a luxury auto, who is not productive, is seen as less honorable than a man dressed in rags who works hard but just does not care for material goods. It's really funny that the predominate religion in this country idolizes just a man, yet turns right around and sneers at the man in rags in real life while paying respect to the person in the Cadilac Escalade who makes his wealth convincing others to waste their money on goods that don't do society any real benefit.

Three thoughts come to mind:

1. If no one has to work, how are goods produced for people to go in and take?

2. Can I walk into a resource outlet and take everything inside, since there is no property? If not, why not? What's the limit on how much I could take? Who decides? What justifies that decision? Could someone walk into the dwelling in which I reside (I refrain from saying "my house" since there's no property) and take all of the food which I had intended to consume, since it is not mine to consume?

3. Given that not all crimes are motivated by monetary gain, on what basis can you claim that removing money removes the need for police?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 4:29:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Of course, if we just removed money tonight this would all be true - we would end up bartering and an alternative currency would quickly fill the vacuum. However, if we lived in independent sustainable communities where all the goods we used were provided by our own community locally,
Meaningless. Communities are not entities, they do not provide things, to speak of them is dependent on the individuals within them.

Goods would not be purchased, they would simply be acquired for free.
In other words, goods would be stolen, in other words, all goods which require work to get would cease to be available, everybody dies, have fun.

There would be no rich or poor, as everyone would have access to about the same level of goods and services
Which is zero.

A breach between agent and beneficiary is always a bad idea. The wider the breach, the worse the consequences.

n a system where you are not forced to work, whether through law (comm/socialism) or through poverty (capitalism), the community starts concerning itself more with valuing its members based on their contributions.
Communities are not concerned with things, do not value things.

And rewarding someone for what they contribute to groups of people that are bound by some common interests (voluntarily formed groups, like corporations) is called a wage. Which requires property.

People who do not care about material goods do not work hard producing them, and people who do have lots of material goods got them by being productive or pleasing those who are, unless they stole them, which you don't recognize as a problem.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 4:31:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 4:19:41 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
OK I am just going to address you all in one post as you all are prett much saying the same thing - abolishing currency will just lead to barter, will just lead to gold etc, will just lead to crap economy, will just lead to chaos. Did I forget anyone in there?
Abolishing government money and replacing it with gold would lead to a far more prosperous society, not a crap economy.

Of course, if we just removed money tonight this would all be true - we would end up bartering and an alternative currency would quickly fill the vacuum. However, if we lived in independent sustainable communities where all the goods we used were provided by our own community locally, and no one was forced to work to gain purchasing power, things would be very different.
People would still have to work. The goods of the community would have to be provided somehow. What your proposing is, rather than have someone dependent on their own hard work for survival, they are dependent on the hard work of other people.

Goods would not be purchased, they would simply be acquired for free. There would be no rich or poor, as everyone would have access to about the same level of goods and services, which would all be available to everyone. There would be no "property rights" so there would be no need for property laws and no need for law enforcement to protect the rich from having their hoards stolen and given back to the people who created the wealth that they are saving for themselves. Police and money go hand in hand and while you can't have money without police, you can get rid of money and therefore the need for police. I'm not talking about making heinous actions legitimate and thus decreasing what can be punished, I am talking about removing the motives that exist for violence and theft - our current system is a breeding grounds for it. Just watch a rap video and see how black culture has absorbed our values; these people don't have a clue that anything they are doing is wrong, and neither do we. Flaunting dollar bills and gold, wasting ridiculous amounts of resources on a luxury automobile and having a general "fvck you, it's mine because I made it myself (even if it wasn't acquired legitimately)" attitude is simply accepted. If someone "provides" for their family they are revered in our society. It doesn't matter if they provide by working hard and producing resources, by simply ripping people off in sales, or just inhereting the money - all we care about it the money itself.
You might be right about your hypothetical commune eliminating crime. But that doesn't explain how this system could ever come into being. As I said, abolishing the current system would lead to a society that is a free market, not anything like your commune. Dollars would be replaced by gold, and the only difference is that society would be far more prosperous and free, not that greed would somehow be magically eliminated.

We can change all this and make the production of resources the main idea, instead of simply how much wealth you have. In a system where you are not forced to work, whether through law (comm/socialism) or through poverty (capitalism), the community starts concerning itself more with valuing its members based on their contributions. IOWs, a person with a luxury auto, who is not productive, is seen as less honorable than a man dressed in rags who works hard but just does not care for material goods. It's really funny that the predominate religion in this country idolizes just a man, yet turns right around and sneers at the man in rags in real life while paying respect to the person in the Cadilac Escalade who makes his wealth convincing others to waste their money on goods that don't do society any real benefit.
Again, how do you suggest this system come about? How do you plan on fundamentally changing human nature to no longer be self-interested?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 4:32:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 4:19:41 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
In a system where you are not forced to work, whether through law (comm/socialism) or through poverty (capitalism), the community starts concerning itself more with valuing its members based on their contributions.

Another two thoughts come to mind:

1. You're trying to advocate the myth which is collective property rights, which really means the property rights of the majority. You disguise it well under the name of "the community", and the notion that property doesn't exist, though.

2. Under your system, a person isn't forced to work because of law or because of poverty - I agree. Now, he is forced to work so that he can keep the favor of his community - for honor, essentially.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 4:45:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 4:19:41 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
OK I am just going to address you all in one post as you all are prett much saying the same thing - abolishing currency will just lead to barter, will just lead to gold etc, will just lead to crap economy, will just lead to chaos. Did I forget anyone in there?

Of course, if we just removed money tonight this would all be true - we would end up bartering and an alternative currency would quickly fill the vacuum. However, if we lived in independent sustainable communities where all the goods we used were provided by our own community locally, and no one was forced to work to gain purchasing power, things would be very different. Goods would not be purchased, they would simply be acquired for free. There would be no rich or poor, as everyone would have access to about the same level of goods and services, which would all be available to everyone. There would be no "property rights" so there would be no need for property laws and no need for law enforcement to protect the rich from having their hoards stolen and given back to the people who created the wealth that they are saving for themselves. Police and money go hand in hand and while you can't have money without police, you can get rid of money and therefore the need for police. I'm not talking about making heinous actions legitimate and thus decreasing what can be punished, I am talking about removing the motives that exist for violence and theft - our current system is a breeding grounds for it. Just watch a rap video and see how black culture has absorbed our values; these people don't have a clue that anything they are doing is wrong, and neither do we. Flaunting dollar bills and gold, wasting ridiculous amounts of resources on a luxury automobile and having a general "fvck you, it's mine because I made it myself (even if it wasn't acquired legitimately)" attitude is simply accepted. If someone "provides" for their family they are revered in our society. It doesn't matter if they provide by working hard and producing resources, by simply ripping people off in sales, or just inhereting the money - all we care about it the money itself.

We can change all this and make the production of resources the main idea, instead of simply how much wealth you have. In a system where you are not forced to work, whether through law (comm/socialism) or through poverty (capitalism), the community starts concerning itself more with valuing its members based on their contributions. IOWs, a person with a luxury auto, who is not productive, is seen as less honorable than a man dressed in rags who works hard but just does not care for material goods. It's really funny that the predominate religion in this country idolizes just a man, yet turns right around and sneers at the man in rags in real life while paying respect to the person in the Cadilac Escalade who makes his wealth convincing others to waste their money on goods that don't do society any real benefit.

I feel bad replying to you because it does just come down to some very simple points.

Without inter-communal trade, without a coercion to produce, what sort of economy do you suppose that you will have. Do you really believe that the full range of modern civilisation can be maintained like that?

Who takes away your rubbish if not the fellow who needs to do so because someone pays him so he can eat. If he has free access to goods and services what incentive is there for him to actually work? Without the vast majority of the working class working who grows the food?

You can moan about the absurdities of the current capitalist system but here is the deal, it works. Your system wouldn't.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 4:45:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Two good ways to stop crime is to decrease incentive and opportunity. Most serious crimes are committed either by the richest of the rich or the poorest of the poor. The rich have much more opportunity and the poor have more incentive. Opportunity is, in of itself, really an incentive so I could actually say that both ways are incentive. A more equal society would produce less crime. I'm sure you'll find this is the case if you look at the countries with the highest income equality.

However, aside from this I personally think the best way to cure crime is to see it and treat it for what it is; a disease. This is mostly untried though.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 4:46:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 4:45:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Two good ways to stop crime is to decrease incentive and opportunity. Most serious crimes are committed either by the richest of the rich or the poorest of the poor. The rich have much more opportunity and the poor have more incentive. Opportunity is, in of itself, really an incentive so I could actually say that both ways are incentive. A more equal society would produce less crime. I'm sure you'll find this is the case if you look at the countries with the highest income equality.

However, aside from this I personally think the best way to cure crime is to see it and treat it for what it is; a disease. This is mostly untried though.

Crime is a sh!t that needs wiping up!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 4:57:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 4:46:39 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/18/2010 4:45:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Two good ways to stop crime is to decrease incentive and opportunity. Most serious crimes are committed either by the richest of the rich or the poorest of the poor. The rich have much more opportunity and the poor have more incentive. Opportunity is, in of itself, really an incentive so I could actually say that both ways are incentive. A more equal society would produce less crime. I'm sure you'll find this is the case if you look at the countries with the highest income equality.

However, aside from this I personally think the best way to cure crime is to see it and treat it for what it is; a disease. This is mostly untried though.

Crime is a sh!t that needs wiping up!

lol yeah
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 5:47:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 4:27:27 PM, Korashk wrote:
Your system involves requiring everyone in the entire world to agree to it. Therefore it wouldn't work. For instance, how would criminal justice be handled? There would still be crime, despite what you think about your utopian idealistic stsyem.

Our country would need to agree to it, yes, but not the entire world. Crime would be minimal because the incentive for it would be significantly reduced.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 5:51:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 5:47:42 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
At 9/18/2010 4:27:27 PM, Korashk wrote:
Your system involves requiring everyone in the entire world to agree to it. Therefore it wouldn't work. For instance, how would criminal justice be handled? There would still be crime, despite what you think about your utopian idealistic stsyem.

Our country would need to agree to it, yes, but not the entire world. Crime would be minimal because the incentive for it would be significantly reduced.

See the bold, and answer the question.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 6:00:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 4:45:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Two good ways to stop crime is to decrease incentive and opportunity. Most serious crimes are committed either by the richest of the rich or the poorest of the poor. The rich have much more opportunity and the poor have more incentive. Opportunity is, in of itself, really an incentive so I could actually say that both ways are incentive. A more equal society would produce less crime. I'm sure you'll find this is the case if you look at the countries with the highest income equality.

However, aside from this I personally think the best way to cure crime is to see it and treat it for what it is; a disease. This is mostly untried though.

So how are you solving it then? A vaccine?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 6:09:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 6:00:07 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 9/18/2010 4:45:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Two good ways to stop crime is to decrease incentive and opportunity. Most serious crimes are committed either by the richest of the rich or the poorest of the poor. The rich have much more opportunity and the poor have more incentive. Opportunity is, in of itself, really an incentive so I could actually say that both ways are incentive. A more equal society would produce less crime. I'm sure you'll find this is the case if you look at the countries with the highest income equality.

However, aside from this I personally think the best way to cure crime is to see it and treat it for what it is; a disease. This is mostly untried though.

So how are you solving it then? A vaccine?

If there were such thing as one that would cure it then sure, that would be great. But I think that's highly unlikely. Most drugs don't actually solve the problem of cure anyone of their psychological issues, just dumb them down. I recommend psychiatric treatment for all criminals.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 6:10:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Doctor, I'm depressed."

"You can't afford to have me treat you. Shoot someone and talk to me again."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 6:40:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Three thoughts come to mind:

1. If no one has to work, how are goods produced for people to go in and take?

What do you want to do with your career, Cody? Follow your dreams and do it. People will be encouraged to be productive, not ordered. For those who want to study, we will need people to design automated systems to take over for our labor-intensive processes. We will naturally cut down on unnecessary and wasteful single-serving wal-mart types of goods because no one is going to choose to make them. Sure, people will buy them out of free choice, but not make them. That is the secret - put the freedom on the side of production, not consumption. There will be those like you and I who are highly skilled and will study for more abstract positions, and those who are not as intellectually-oriented that will do more physical labor. Why will they do it without being forced? Because they want to. I realize this seems contradictory, but bear with me for a moment. They will want to work, in general, because of honor. People will be revered who work hard. Just like you spend your money on a Lexus and feel revered under our current system, you will instead get this social satisfaction out of contribution. About menial labor, I have several points. First, instead of doing 60 hours a week in a sweatshop doing the same task for an overbearing boss and miserable co-workers, tasks can be broken down into many small parts. I would think a normal work-week would consist of 5 days, each doing something different. One day helping out in the community gardens, one day in the manufacturing plant, one day in distribution facilities, etc. - there's no reason to lock into one menial job. And since there won't be such a high... activation energy if you will, for starting a new position (because hiring/firing won't be so big of a deal for legal reasons, profit reasons, etc), people will have the opportunity to do many different things. What if I told you you could just show up at any job in your community and help out? No resume, application, pre-employment drug screening, employment history scrutiny, interview process, commitment/contract, mandatory overtime... Just the desire to work. Personally, I would spend a day in the gardens, a couple days studying, a day in the office, and a day of hard work to keep my body strong. I can't do these jobs now because I am simply not allowed to.

2. Can I walk into a resource outlet and take everything inside, since there is no property? If not, why not? What's the limit on how much I could take? Who decides? What justifies that decision? Could someone walk into the dwelling in which I reside (I refrain from saying "my house" since there's no property) and take all of the food which I had intended to consume, since it is not mine to consume?

Yes, walk right in and grab. Your community isn't going to be producing many luxury goods, so there will be little incentive to overconsume. Instead of a box store, shops will be small and sparse. If you show up at the electronics dealer every other day wanting more televisions, they likely are going to tell you you are being unreasonable and send you away. Besides, you won't need a bunch of TVs because you'll have one already which you aren't going to pay for. Amassing hoards of material goods are going to be anti-social behavior; instead of impressing your friends they will be wondering why you took it upon yourself to overconsume. If you are a particularly hard-worker, however, and do not over-consume in many different areas (people can have areas of preference, of course) then I doubt anyone is going to give it a second-thought.

As far as your property rights questions are concerned, keep in mind that everything is free. What incentive do I have to take all your food when it is free at the grocer? Since it is free, I would probably just give you my food if you came over hungry, because I know I am not sacrificing much by giving it to you. Formal limits at each shop, of consumption, would be enforced by the producer. One per person would generally be the status quo, with exceptions when necessary. The key is that in a rule-less society, there is more room for real situations. Every rule has an exception, generally speaking, and people in this type of society would understand that.

3. Given that not all crimes are motivated by monetary gain, on what basis can you claim that removing money removes the need for police?

Well, assuming that you understand how property rights and greed cause a significant amount of crime incentive and that my system would obviously ameliorate this by default, that leaves crime of the violent sort. This is a little more complex. First off, realize that class division and the oppression that comes with it plays a big role. Stressing out over your finances, menial job, overbearing boss, and lack of time and money for what you want are big factors. With lack of time comes lack of family. Under our current system, mothers who would have (60 years ago) stayed at home while the husband worked are now working two jobs themselves, and having to hire baby-sitters, day-care, and the like. Less stress and more time to give to developing children are the cornerstone of my reasonsing. I suppose that even if you factor in increased freedom, emotional detatchment from property, more time for child-rearing, less stress and worry, and more opportunity to do what you want in your career that there would still be those who are simply prone to mischeif and want to cause strife. I believe this would be a minimal percentage, however, as there would be little authoritarian trends in society that would provoke this behavior. Rape, for example, has long been understood to be based on power and authority, not someone's urge to fvck a pretty girl. Fighting is similar, but yes it still would exist. How we deal with the little bit of crime that still would occur would be mainly with the free spread of information. If someone is prone to misdeeds, we wil create a record for them which will be viewable by everyone. As communities will be much more tightly knit by design, it will become harder for them to participate if everyone knows what they have done. If this sounds weak then consider what we currently do; unless they do something absolutely heinous then we put them in jail and let them out after a while, with really nothing preventing them from perpetrating the crime again. In fact, once they end up in jail, they are likely to get worse. They end up networking with criminals, becoming more hard-headed and morally averse, and losing their ability to function positively in society because of their record. My system uses a record to, but consider how hard it is to get a job in our system even without a record. People with a record in my society, would probably still have a better chance of getting a job than in our current system without one... Which leads us to ask "why is unemployment at 10%?" Tell me one good reason why ten percent of our people do not work. If our system is so efficient and equitable, then why don't we even want to do business with each other?
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 6:50:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 6:00:07 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 9/18/2010 4:45:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Two good ways to stop crime is to decrease incentive and opportunity. Most serious crimes are committed either by the richest of the rich or the poorest of the poor. The rich have much more opportunity and the poor have more incentive. Opportunity is, in of itself, really an incentive so I could actually say that both ways are incentive. A more equal society would produce less crime. I'm sure you'll find this is the case if you look at the countries with the highest income equality.

However, aside from this I personally think the best way to cure crime is to see it and treat it for what it is; a disease. This is mostly untried though.

So how are you solving it then? A vaccine?

Freedo is attempting to address crime as a solvable problem, other then just passing it off as a given and creating more jails. I would suggest he address the root cause (eh hem) instead of just trying to find a "cure' afterwards.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 6:54:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 6:10:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"Doctor, I'm depressed."

"You can't afford to have me treat you. Shoot someone and talk to me again."

10/10.