On Defunding Police and other “reforms” (oh the reformer!)

I will admit their imperfection as I will admit my own and yours. As to the significance of the imperfection and who is most harmed by it I will leave you to your investigation. But do not cherry pick data. That is for me and for you.

Some are creating an environment in which rational inquiry and objective investigation are punishable. This anti-truth movement is anti-reality which is suicidal. I encourage you toward reality investigation. The best environment for that is one of liberty since you want the mind to be able to freely adapt to reality through inquiry if you are interested in adapting to it. To the degree it becomes shameful or even illegal to question, challenge or debate reality I invite you to go private with it. But don’t stop!

On the defense service provided and its importance. The service provided is a basic and ineliminable good. It is a good that must be payed for. You who wish to defund–if you care about the poor at all, know that they are most effected by crime and will be most-effected by defunding. I will not even waste time on the claim that we should assault the rich in order to better protect the poor. You know the rich will run right? I know, I know. When YOU are tyrant it will all be better.

But much damage has already been done. Police officers are walking away voluntarily. And those who will be MOST harmed are the MOST vulnerable. There is no way around this. It is an iron-law. Those who prey on other humans (rape, murder, theft) always seek the weakest of the herd.

While I think that the privatization of defense services would be far better and would create the kind of competition that would incentivize better behavior by defense service providers wishing to retain customers, and there are costs to the current system of defense services funded through theft and aggression of forced taxation, I think it some time before privatization will be a reality. My sense is that it will likely be only after the destruction of the centralized state that will be brought about by those seeking its control. I am not holding my breath. Those who wield power are keenly aware that an appearance of legitimacy and minimum satisfaction must be maintained else there hold on theft and aggression will become rather weak. But that the defense service is funded by attack (taxation) could not be more ironic.

Already the Minneapolis police were unable to respond to “priority 1” 911 calls, including rape and murder. Note that. Note honestly that the policy you (defunder) pursue will lead to an increase in the number of weak and vulnerable people attacked, assaulted and murdered.

The data was already collected by those who study crime and community attitudes toward police in the last media frenzy of police brutality. Police are human. Where they risk charges of racism or other “evil” they recede. Wouldn’t you? And it is too predictable that crime increases.

Those who want to defund/reform are certain that the system needs reform which means they have measured carefully both how bad the current imperfection is and their capacity to wield the same power better than it is now wielded. And it is in this self-measurement of superior clarity, both moral and factual, that I would rest on. The legal reformer claims moral superiority (better able to instantiate the good). In addition he claims a rich knowledge of cause and effect. It is causal knowledge that predicts how effects will be altered by reform. No hopes. We need accurate forecast.

Setting aside the claim to moral superiority which is dubious at best, what often happens in the USA, which is experiencing a tendency toward centralization, is that a complex institutional structure that grew organically through many small decision and changed incrementally over time according to the accumulation of minor adjustments and refinements, will replaced by a centralized decision-making procedure where many fewer will hold much more power. The implications are probabilistic only. But probabilities should not be eschewed.

If you are unfamiliar with the comparison and contrast between decentralized and centralized decision making I will offer you this one point for consideration and leave you to assess the risks of further centralization of decentralization. The size of the decision-maker remains the same but the size of reality chosen for increases dramatically as centralization increases. You take it from there. What are the on-average risks to the decision-maker who dramatically increases the size and complexity of that which they are responsible for choosing for.

Good luck!

Published by Purilib

Anonymously interested in grasping the good life.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: