There are also several safety nets available currently and I've generally found that in life if the solution is to throw more money at it, your solution isn't a solution at all.
ie it does require a partnership but there are partnerships in place already rent controlled areas, food stamps, welfare as in additional money needy families.
Frankly I'm still sold on a UBI, it saves everyone MASSIVE time from bureaucratic systems and forms and just gives cash.
Originally posted by snowdragon
There are also several safety nets available currently and I've generally found that in life if the solution is to throw more money at it, your solution isn't a solution at all.ie it does require a partnership but there are partnerships in place already rent controlled areas, food stamps, welfare as in additional money needy families.
Frankly I'm still sold on a UBI, it saves everyone MASSIVE time from bureaucratic systems and forms and just gives cash.
Originally posted by Artol
UBI is a great idea, we should not dismantle all other safety nets for it though. But we don't really have to wonder about solutions, we can look at other societies (or different times in United States history) at solutions. And to say it's "throwing money" at the issue is a bit simplistic, but of course, structural investments do help with a lot of problems.
I think that's where the rub of it falls, do you have any examples of existing states/cultures with a welfare system in place to model with analytics to measure what their success means?
It's been my experience (for what its worth) that having a good (govt) support system is second to many respsonsibilities faced by individuals.
However the wicked reality is that until the MASSIVE amount of homicides and crime can be controlled no one will reasonably get a substanial amount of outside help for fear of their well being. When you have mayors that literally allow ppl to destroy their neighborhoods, the govt isn't swift to respond.
Originally posted by Artol
You make a lot of very good point, each worthy of an in-depth discussion as to historical and political reasons and potential solutions, however I believe that would go beyond the scope of a mere forum post. I will give some short thoughts to some of them and then discuss the original point a bit more.
Appreciate this and I agree: our convo is laughably sophomoric for what it really needs to be if we are to give a proper stab at significantly amending our US police force to a better operational state. However, this is still a more nuanced and honest convo than most of our politicians are currently undertaking. I saw a meme (it wasn't for laughs) that listed out all the empty platitudes they were seeing about improving corporations and law enforcement. Then it concluded something like "But literally nothing that matters has changed." And that still sticks with me - all this virtue signalling and empty change we see is a massive waste of time. All it does is make us feel better just a little bit.
Originally posted by Artol
[b]Distrust of Police
This is a big problem, and that is one that can be addressed by splitting the police force into multiple distinct institutions. You could have non-police patrolling neighborhoods, unarmed, with limited authority, just helping neighbors out and if necessary, calling in a different institution that takes care of heavier duties. This would go a long way to reinstate trust in community policing.[/B]
Good news: we have a giant load of data we can pour through from all over the world on how to build trust in the local communities with police. Even in the US, some police departments undertook reformation measures to BRT (build relationships of trust) with their local communities. We don't even have to go to other nations for this data. But we can. We only have to look at the UK, partner with Scotland, and bring in the experts that helped improve Glasgow from the murder capital of the western world to a halfway decent large city.
Just google "how the police can build trust" and look for scholarly results. There's a ton of both studies and case studies out there.
Originally posted by Artol
[b]Education and Single Parent Families
You are very right that single parent households are sadly a detriment to the children that grow up in them. Especially for black families the incarceration rate you mentioned is a big reason for that, but of course there are many others. I am wary of many who advocate for "nuclear families" without acknowledging that we need to help single parent families as well. Because there are policies that can help narrow the gap of results between single and dual parent households, things like investment in early child care facilities, well staffed, safe schools, free food programs, and similar. We need to be careful that our advocacy for dual parent households, does not even further disadvantage the children in a single parent household (nor the single parent themselves). Perhaps also controversial, but another thing that can help is the availability of free and easy contraception (and abortions if we want to go really controversial), to enable people to plan their families more proactively and give the offspring the best opportunities. [/B]
Even a less than good home that is still a nuclear family is a better outcome than a single parent home. It makes that much of a difference. And why would millions of years of evolution result in something different? It should be obvious why the biological father and mother, staying together, would be able to produce the most optimal offspring.
Also, Backfire is a strong advocate of "why not both?" I agree. We can work on policies that encourage families to stay together WHILE ALSO helping single parent homes. Both should be the goal.
1. Free school lunches for all children who cannot afford it - period. This includes summer options, too. No exceptions.
2. Universal Basic Income - in the limited research we have, UBI produces less single parent homes. Women don't churn out babies at a young age in shaky relationships was one of the reasons for this.
3. Affordable Universal Healthcare.
4. End the drug war.
5. continued below...
Originally posted by Artol
[b]Incarceration
We talked about this previously, one thing I think is certainly necessary is the restoration of all civil rights to a person that has completed their sentence (barring court ordered necessary supervision). In that regard I do think it should be forbidden to discriminate on the criminal record, private employers should not be allowed to ask for these records, and public employers certainly shouldn't be prohibited from hiring based on criminal record. If an ex-convict becomes a police officer I would view that as a great success story.[/B]
I agree that criminal records should not be used against formerly convicted criminals. That should be up to the CJS to use mental health professionals to determine whether or not they can take up sensitive jobs like law enforcement. Some people may be rehabilitated back into society but it is not a good idea for them to be in high-stress, potentially violent situations. Leave that up to mental health professionals to make that determination. Experts specific and equipped to this very topic (this is my technocrat side showing again).
Also, and this should be very obvious, you don't allow a child rapist to work for a daycare center after getting out of prison.
I think your solution works when done in conjunction with science-based rehabilitation programs, mental health assistance, and multiple professionals involved in the program to "public release" approval.
For more reading on rehabilitation programs that work:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/incarceration-can-be-rehabilitative
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1628408
I would also view it a massive win for a society that could rehabilitate their former criminals so well that they became successful law enforcement personnel.
Originally posted by Artol
Back to [b]Standards Concessions
For example the standards for the previously laid out community police force (who would not be empowered with the states monopoly on violence, not be armed, and could not make arrests) could be different (or "lower"😉 enabling more black people to be in the pool of potential applicants (at the same times they could be framed in a way to exclude more affluent, white suburban applicants). This would also help in investing into the community, and ensuring that tax dollars are spend where they are taken and needed.Similarly social workers have different standards than police officers.
But again I don't see it as the only policy that would help. Although this is maybe not the thread to discuss others. [/B]
As far as standards, police cannot be low-intelligence, low-educated individuals. They must be able to deal with all sorts of terrible and complicated situations. They must also possess certain strength of character and mental health traits. We put these standards on Air Traffic Controllers (ATCs) - there's no reason we could not assemble a body of neuroscientists and psychologists/psychiatrists to put together similar standards for law enforcement at the national level. And then require police be able to pass the national standards. And after they pass and become full fledged members of law enforcement, they must maintain mental health evaluations to a minimum standard to retain their positions JUST like ATCs.
IMO, to hell with the initial problem of under-representation of black men. It's going to take 10-20 years to correct some of those problems and we should not use affirmative action programs to force diversity. In general, police are represented in the same ratios as their local population so it is not really a problem that needs to be solved for, for now.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Sure you are, your solution was all about what the police could do to fix the relationship. What are your suggestions for what the community could do to fix the relationship.
For 1, stop telling black people that they helpless and need help. It's patronizing as f*ck. It's also racist.
2, stop fostering a culture of anti-sociality with violence, egoism, etc. It's toxic and it needs to die, fast.
Beyond that, the burden is on public policy and the police themselves to repair the relationships.
Originally posted by Artol
I mean we could quibble about some of those things, but I'm really more interested in how the decision making process would change in a society you could reform it in a technocratic manner. Obviously the system we have now does not lead to scientifically supported policy at all times, so some of the institutions would have to change, right? And then I would be interested how they would change, who would be in charge, like you said you view a lot of the social sciences as biased, and that may be true to some degree, but who gets to decide which of the social sciences are biased and which ones are not.I fundamentally also just believe that there are differences in values that are harder to quantify with a science based approach, but that's a different topic.
You won't like my answer.
Authoritarian scientists!
No, seriously. Just like the ancient Greeks did it in their pure democracy systems in their nation-states: compulsory participation. But limited. Kind of like winning the lotto but it's "I have government duty." Becoming a credentialed researcher or scientist does not give you much power due to the scientific method being king. It is pretty much impossible. So my joke cannot happen.
We can still hold elections, referendums, etc. We'd still need a judicial system as well as a legislative body.
Humans are not ready to implement a technocracy. And my idealized versions of it (I actually wrote a long ass paper on this in college for my political science degree), General Artificial Intelligence might have to actually exist. But the problem with GAI is the singularity and who's to say it would agree to be our judge?
Originally posted by Silent Master
People need to start getting active in their communities again, start giving a shit again. One of the main reasons police over-reach and militarization got so bad is because the community gave up all their responsibilities and put them on the police.
Oh, I forgot really important one related to this:
Teaching people personal responsibility for their actions and forcing kids (with severe beatings - JK, JK. Science based instruction that is proven to work) to acknowledge their mistakes. Making it to where acknowledging your mistakes and correcting them is a virtuous thing. Stop feeding the egos so that we raise a bunch of "never do nothing wrong" narcissists. They also need to learn that people can and will say mean things and they just need to learn to deal with it.
Originally posted by snowdragon
There are also several safety nets available currently and I've generally found that in life if the solution is to throw more money at it, your solution isn't a solution at all.ie it does require a partnership but there are partnerships in place already rent controlled areas, food stamps, welfare as in additional money needy families.
Frankly I'm still sold on a UBI, it saves everyone MASSIVE time from bureaucratic systems and forms and just gives cash.
Originally posted by Artol
UBI is a great idea, we should not dismantle all other safety nets for it though. But we don't really have to wonder about solutions, we can look at other societies (or different times in United States history) at solutions. And to say it's "throwing money" at the issue is a bit simplistic, but of course, structural investments do help with a lot of problems.
Originally posted by snowdragon
I think that's where the rub of it falls, do you have any examples of existing states/cultures with a welfare system in place to model with analytics to measure what their success means?It's been my experience (for what its worth) that having a good (govt) support system is second to many respsonsibilities faced by individuals.
However the wicked reality is that until the MASSIVE amount of homicides and crime can be controlled no one will reasonably get a substanial amount of outside help for fear of their well being. When you have mayors that literally allow ppl to destroy their neighborhoods, the govt isn't swift to respond.
I have great news: last night I was bored so I put together the most recent data on net-tax burdens by households.
The most recent data they had was from 2015 tax year. It takes several years for them to go through the data and put out there numbers.
Note on the Data Source:
You will have to subtract "Income After Transfers and Taxes" values from "Market Income" to get net tax burden.
So what does that have to do with this topic?
Get rid of almost all of these negative effective tax rates, make the system more direct, and save a SHITLOAD of money on administrative and efficiency costs.
The UBI should be graduated, not absolute.
Get rid of almost all of these negative effective tax rates, make the system more direct, and save a SHITLOAD of money on administrative and efficiency costs.The UBI should be graduated, not absolute.
I touched on that briefly not long ago. There is no magic bullet, it does take partnerships to make difficult situations better and it doesn't happen overnight. I'm falling back to alot of yang jam but 2 things stuck with me:
needing to fullfill bills sucks up a huge amount of mental resources of individuals something like a 1/3 of a persons capacity which is better spent on living
And the number of welfare systems in place take up far to much of an individuals time to validate services.
combine those 2 and we can see where the govt's systems fail, not just from perhaps lack of funding but systems that require to much demand from those that participate.
Triggered News:
Gun Enthusiast kills 2 out of 3 armed home intruders:
We were just arguing about this very topic a few weeks ago. This is what happens when a highly trained and prepared gun enthusiast has his or her home invaded by armed robbers - the home invaders get slaughtered.
This is my favorite part of the story. After he quickly killed the first 2 home invader:
The homeowner saw a third invader and fired but his gun jammed. He grabbed another gun but the intruder had left. The homeowner got a phone call from a neighbor who told him he was holding the intruder, identified as Jeremiah Tramel, at gunpoint.
I just picture this guy being like a clown pulling out an endless handkerchief but instead of a handkerchief, it's just more guns.
haermm
Originally posted by dadudemon
Triggered News:Gun Enthusiast kills 2 out of 3 armed home intruders:
We were just arguing about this very topic a few weeks ago. This is what happens when a highly trained and prepared gun enthusiast has his or her home invaded by armed robbers - the home invaders get slaughtered.
This is my favorite part of the story. After he quickly killed the first 2 home invader:
I just picture this guy being like a clown pulling out an endless handkerchief but instead of a handkerchief, it's just more guns.
haermm
He loves firearms so much he's willing to give strangers free bullets.
Awesome.
Originally posted by Surtur
Hmm.https://twitter.com/Hammer_Of_Glass/status/1276198714072338432
That's it. Burn it all to the ground.
Just destroy twitter.
My comment is funny because I'm saying the same shit that one dude said on twitter about the Rioters and Looters and he didn't get banned from twitter. 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemonThe thing is the portrayal of protest by right wing posters here is its own performance in censoriousness, one that treats criticism as abuse and accountability as victimisation. You people are amusing.
That's it. Burn it all to the ground.Just destroy twitter.
My comment is funny because I'm saying the same shit that one dude said on twitter about the Rioters and Looters and he didn't get banned from twitter. 🙂
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
The thing is the portrayal of protest by right wing posters here is its own performance in censoriousness, one that treats criticism as abuse and accountability as victimisation. You people are amusing.
I laughed out loud because you're describing the modern day left perfectly in this post and you don't even realize it.
I shit you not in response to the cancel culture letter some crybabies wrote their own and signed it and some of whom signed did so anonymously for fear of reprisal at work, etc. Some even tried to blame NDA's too.
You can't make this up lol
That's like someone telling a black guy "racism doesn't exist you stupid N word" (but they say the actual word, not the phrase "n word"😉
Originally posted by Surtur
Speaking of awesome:
The leaders and instigators don't care. the movement isn't really about police brutality. that is just the excuse they use to get the sheep to do what they want.