3 ms·
You're quite literally advocating for selective law enforcement based on the income of the individual in question. If the victim is too poor or the thief is too
by fzeroracer 7y ago
You're quite literally advocating for selective law enforcement based on the income of the individual in question. If the victim is too poor or the thief is too rich, then the law doesn't get enforced.
In this scenario then, only the corporations can enforce the law or prompt the police to act. Do you not see why that might be a problem?
- knzhou 7y agoI'm not advocating for anything, I am describing what already happens and why it is pragmatic. Look, in a perfect world, maybe there would be a police officer ready to spend all day scouring the flea markets for my stolen bike, the second I ask, but we don't live in that world. There are a finite number of police officers and, unless the stolen object is very valuable or the investigation will be quick, they have better things to do. For example, they have reduced the murder rate in East Palo Alto (right next to Facebook campus) by over 97%. That is far more important than anything discussed in this thread.