4 ms·

> (having 0 crime is a good goal, but we will never get there and need to be realistic). Actually, please stop there and think about this for a second. Having

> (having 0 crime is a good goal, but we will never get there and need to be realistic). Actually, please stop there and think about this for a second. Having zero crime depends extremely strongly on the precise definition of "crime". Much more so than other, non-zero levels of crime. This is only a good thing if you are absolutely sure that the definition of what constitutes a crime right now is perfect and immutable. Extreme positions are almost always a bad idea and I think this is one of those cases.

godelski 7y ago
Why does my point have to depend on immutables? I'm really pointing out Pareto, which is still going to exist if you add or remove crimes. The only way I can see your counterpoint being an actual rebuttal, and not just pedantic, is if you redefine crime to be something meaningless. But if we're allowed to change definitions then we can't really have any conversation about anything. But language is imprecise and we can quibble over things that are in that imprecision or we can argue over what was the clear intent of statements.
- feanaro 7y ago
  It was not meant as a rebuttal of your overall point, which I agree with. I'm adding to your point by saying that I don't consider "0% crime" as a desirable goal since crime is something defined by people and people are fallible, hence the definition is also fallible. The problem is not in removing meaning from the word "crime". We all have an imprecise, handwavey meaning of the word in our minds when we use it. We usually mean something like "undesirable behaviour which benefits a single individual while harming others". The problem arises when you try to operationalize this loose notion into laws since this process frequently results in errors. Another way this can go sour is due to overreach by groups currently in power in an effort to stay in power, leading to loss of freedom (which is more applicable in this case). In other words, some crime is actually people breaking the law because for good reason, like rebelling against an unjust, inefficient or overreaching law. Therefore, it's better to strive for a low crime rate than a zero crime rate. This is also the conclusion you arrive at through the application of the Pareto principle.

godelski 7y ago

Why does my point have to depend on immutables? I'm really pointing out Pareto, which is still going to exist if you add or remove crimes. The only way I can see your counterpoint being an actual rebuttal, and not just pedantic, is if you redefine crime to be something meaningless. But if we're allowed to change definitions then we can't really have any conversation about anything. But language is imprecise and we can quibble over things that are in that imprecision or we can argue over what was the clear intent of statements.

feanaro 7y ago
It was not meant as a rebuttal of your overall point, which I agree with. I'm adding to your point by saying that I don't consider "0% crime" as a desirable goal since crime is something defined by people and people are fallible, hence the definition is also fallible. The problem is not in removing meaning from the word "crime". We all have an imprecise, handwavey meaning of the word in our minds when we use it. We usually mean something like "undesirable behaviour which benefits a single individual while harming others". The problem arises when you try to operationalize this loose notion into laws since this process frequently results in errors. Another way this can go sour is due to overreach by groups currently in power in an effort to stay in power, leading to loss of freedom (which is more applicable in this case). In other words, some crime is actually people breaking the law because for good reason, like rebelling against an unjust, inefficient or overreaching law. Therefore, it's better to strive for a low crime rate than a zero crime rate. This is also the conclusion you arrive at through the application of the Pareto principle.