Defunding Police

[surreptitious57]

Power corrupts but better to have a corrupt system than no system at all merely because it is the lesser of those twin evils
The ideal solution would be to have entirely uncorruptable individuals in positions of power even thought that is impossible
Therefore the most practical solution is to have checks and balances as rigorous as possible on all of those in such positions

All human beings are imperfect and so striving for a perfect justice system - while desirable - is simply unattainable
So one should therefore work with what actually is rather than with an imaginary idealistic notion of what should be

Having a justice system - or indeed any system for that matter - that has as few imperfections as possible should be the goal
Now such a system will never be perfect - though over time will become better if the will to change it for the better is there

This improvement exists not simply at the system level but at the individual level as well because individuals make up such systems
Ultimately the state of each system is a representation of every individual who comprises not just the system but society in general

[commonsense]

Power corrupts but better to have a corrupt system than no system at all merely because it is the lesser of those twin evils
The ideal solution would be to have entirely uncorruptable individuals in positions of power even thought that is impossible
Therefore the most practical solution is to have checks and balances as rigorous as possible on all of those in such positions

All human beings are imperfect and so striving for a perfect justice system - while desirable - is simply unattainable
So one should therefore work with what actually is rather than with an imaginary idealistic notion of what should be

Having a justice system - or indeed any system for that matter - that has as few imperfections as possible should be the goal
Now such a system will never be perfect - though over time will become better if the will to change it for the better is there

This improvement exists not simply at the system level but at the individual level as well because individuals make up such systems
Ultimately the state of each system is a representation of every individual who comprises not just the system but society in general

All true. I find it discouraging, though, that the prevalence of corruption is sufficient to hinder improvement.

[commonsense]

The issue is not blacks killing blacks.

then you think black lives don't really matter, do they?

-Imp

I oppose cops killing blacks. I oppose cops killing whites. I oppose cops killing anyone who is unarmed or whose alleged crime doesn’t rise to the level of a death sentence.

[commonsense]

it should sound wonderful to everyone

so: why don't we have any of it?

I would say it’s because not all people are inherently able to participate in that kind of freedom.

which people, and why can't they be free?

The stupid ones, because they don’t think for themselves.

[henry quirk]

I would say it’s because not all people are inherently able to participate in that kind of freedom.

which people, and why can't they be free?

The stupid ones, because they don’t think for themselves.

so, cuz some are dumb, none of us can have nice things

[commonsense]

which people, and why can't they be free?

The stupid ones, because they don’t think for themselves.

so, cuz some are dumb, none of us can have nice things

I see where I misspoke. I only meant that the dumb ones can’t enjoy freedom.

[Immanuel Can]

I only meant that the dumb ones can’t enjoy freedom.

Fair enough.

But what "freedom" entails is that you don't just get it by being smart. You have to allow people 'of limited capacities' to have the same options, even if some of them don't use their freedom as you and I would wish them to.

Freedom's always like that: it liberates the wise and moral to do what they do; but it also entails allowing people who are less wise and less moral to choose to do what they do.

[henry quirk]

The stupid ones, because they don’t think for themselves.

so, cuz some are dumb, none of us can have nice things

I see where I misspoke. I only meant that the dumb ones can’t enjoy freedom.

bein' free ain't an intellectual exercise: it's what a person is

doesn't seem to me dummies can't appreciate bein' free

[commonsense]

I only meant that the dumb ones can’t enjoy freedom.

Fair enough.

But what "freedom" entails is that you don't just get it by being smart. You have to allow people 'of limited capacities' to have the same options, even if some of them don't use their freedom as you and I would wish them to.

Freedom's always like that: it liberates the wise and moral to do what they do; but it also entails allowing people who are less wise and less moral to choose to do what they do.

Good point. But if the less wise just choose to let government tell them what to do and what not to do, are they enjoying their freedom?

[commonsense]

so, cuz some are dumb, none of us can have nice things

I see where I misspoke. I only meant that the dumb ones can’t enjoy freedom.

bein' free ain't an intellectual exercise: it's what a person is

doesn't seem to me dummies can't appreciate bein' free

If they don’t think for themselves, if they allow the government to tell them what to do and what not to do, they are not exercising their freedom. If they don’t use it, they cannot appreciate it.

[Immanuel Can]

Good point. But if the less wise just choose to let government tell them what to do and what not to do, are they enjoying their freedom?

That's tragic, isn't it? I mean the fact that one has to convince the foolish even to see their freedom as a benefit, so earnest as they are to surrender it to Big Government, in the hopes of being granted a more permanent free lunch. They don't even know what they're giving up.

[henry quirk]

I see where I misspoke. I only meant that the dumb ones can’t enjoy freedom.

bein' free ain't an intellectual exercise: it's what a person is

doesn't seem to me dummies can't appreciate bein' free

If they don’t think for themselves, if they allow the government to tell them what to do and what not to do, they are not exercising their freedom. If they don’t use it, they cannot appreciate it.

That's their call. Me, I'm not in the business of second guessin' or policin' others. Loads of folks, dumb as bricks and sharp as razors, willingly give themselves over to authority. Most, I think, do this cuz they value safety and are willin' to give up freedom to have it. That's a fool's trade, but that's their business.

[commonsense]

Yes, I see that it is actually a safety-for-freedom kind of thing, unrelated to intellect.

[gaffo]

I saw a political ad yesterday on YouTube for the Donald Trump campaign. The ad showed a telephone which you heard ringing and then you get a recorded message or something saying you've reached 911 but there are no police because they've been defunded. So if you're a victim of "rape, domestic violence, or home intrusion", etc. you're just going to be left high and dry. (At the end of the phone message it says "someone should be there to help you in five days". And at the end of the ad, it shows a picture of Joe Biden, implying that Biden would be sympathetic to Black Lives Matter's "defund police" campaign.

I don't know what Biden's official position is on BLM's demands but I have to say it was probably one of the most powerful political ads I've yet witnessed--very emotive. You can certainly bet that Donald Trump isn't going to get behind defunding police. And the idea seems absolutely absurd to me. It sort of makes me want to vote for Trump myself this time around.

It seems to me that BLM is really shooting progressive causes in the foot. Back in 2016, a couple of girls with BLM seized control of the microphone at a Bernie Sanders rally, basically shutting it down. Now they're all about defunding police, lending even more credibility to Trump. Ultimately it's good news for Republicans and conservatives that BLM is forcing progressive candidates into embarrassingly absurd and unrealistic campaign positions. Just makes me want to shake my head.

EDIT: Actually here's the ad itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNav5wO5dh0

The right has always been better at messaging than the left ("Death Tax" Frank Lutz is an genius), sounds like a good ad.

Ya the Left - part of - are going overboard - toppling statures/etc (dumb and irrelivent - leave the statues up, they are a part of actually history and should not be forgotten (include the evil of))

I'm all for defunding the police (not abolishing) - tighten the purse strings and maybe they will make batter hiring choices, and train to PROTECT AND SERVE ME - rather than hiring former Irqnam vets with PTSD who only thing to OCCUPY AND SIEGE ME.

so ya fuck the cops, they have the wrong mentality - go back to the older days of PROTECT AND SERVE - pigs all to me until they learn the old school mentality - pre Iraqnam vet hiring days.

[gaffo]

In a community where most are self-responsible, self-directing, and willing to self-defend: police aren't needed.

In a community where most are irresponsible, craving direction by others, and aren't willing to self-defend: police can't save the day.

It's a pickle.

True, but sadly we've lost community since the 1990's (1st world problem) - we all now isolated behind computers talking to others - both in our bubbles not know the persons living beside up on the street.

a nation without community is a sick one moving to failure, sadly.