In Minneapolis, they are going to vote for the dismantling of the police department, to switch to community based policing.
While this sounds good on the surface, the reality will unfortunately be quite a bit messier. It will lead to what some call the "San Francisco" model of policing: Crime is allowed to happen, in open view and without any risk of prosecution, in a concentrated area of the city, which already has a lot of crime. The implicit agreement is that it's ok for crime to occur there, as long as it doesn't spill outside of that area. In San Francisco that area is called the Tenderloin. Of course, policing and enforcement will continue as always in the wealthy areas, which will be protected from crime as they always have.
The end effect is that you have very little policing and enforcement, as people wished, but the crime becomes highly concentrated in one area. This is terrible for the people living there.
I hope people understand this before they decide to dismantle police departments.
The thesis of the book isn't that eliminating policing will solve the problems that create violent crime, but that policing itself doesn't prevent crime or fix those underlying problems. I'd really suggest giving the book a read.
Economically determinant policing. I guess Twitter putting their HQ in the Tenderloin is some techno-libertarian experiment. But given the last few years of jury selection rounds I’ve attended, the testimonies from Twitter SRO tenants are not pleased with the progress.
> In 2001, Hoppe published Democracy: The God That Failed which examines various social and economic phenomena which, Hoppe argues, are problems caused by democratic forms of government. He attributes democracy's failures to pressure groups which seek to increase government expenditures and regulations. Hoppe proposes alternatives and remedies, including secession, decentralization of government, and "complete freedom of contract, occupation, trade and migration". Hoppe argues that monarchy would preserve individual liberty more effectively than democracy....
> In Democracy Hoppe describes a fully libertarian society of "covenant communities" made up of residents who have signed an agreement defining the nature of that community. Hoppe writes "There would be little or no 'tolerance' and 'openmindedness' so dear to left-libertarians. Instead, one would be on the right path toward restoring the freedom of association and exclusion implied in the institution of private property". Hoppe writes that towns and villages could have warning signs saying "no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus"....
> As a self-proclaimed anarchist who favors abolishing the nation-state, Hoppe believes that as long as states exist, they should impose some restrictions on immigration. Hoppe has equated free immigration to "forced integration" which violates the rights of native peoples, since if land were privately owned, immigration would not be unhindered but would only occur with the consent of private property owners. Hoppe's Mises Institute colleague Walter Block has characterized Hoppe as an "anti-open immigration activist" who argues that, though all public property is "stolen" by the state from taxpayers, "the state compounds the injustice when it allows immigrants to use [public] property, thus further "invading" the private property rights of the original owners".
> The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a claim is ignored in favor of attacking or championing its source.
Huh? I was merely pointing out some relevant context of the work you cited. Context that people might want to be aware of as they consider its arguments and perspectives.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Posting a quote of a logical fallacy is breaking your own rules. Consider pointing out which rules you think are being broke and why (the “why” being the important part of that sentence).
Note that the genetic fallacy is similar to Godwin’s Law: it specifically doesn’t apply when pointing out a pattern of behaviour.
For example, pointing out that the author of a particular philosophical piece is from a certain school of philosophy is important to people who do not understand the background of philosophical schools.
It’s a form of reality check: would you accept relationship advice from a person who has never had a meaningful relationship?
While this sounds good on the surface, the reality will unfortunately be quite a bit messier. It will lead to what some call the "San Francisco" model of policing: Crime is allowed to happen, in open view and without any risk of prosecution, in a concentrated area of the city, which already has a lot of crime. The implicit agreement is that it's ok for crime to occur there, as long as it doesn't spill outside of that area. In San Francisco that area is called the Tenderloin. Of course, policing and enforcement will continue as always in the wealthy areas, which will be protected from crime as they always have.
The end effect is that you have very little policing and enforcement, as people wished, but the crime becomes highly concentrated in one area. This is terrible for the people living there.
I hope people understand this before they decide to dismantle police departments.