6 ms·
Market-focused rhetoric over the past decades has made it tempting to think we can just allocate payments the right way to accomplish what we want. This is one
by GavinMcG 6y ago
Market-focused rhetoric over the past decades has made it tempting to think we can just allocate payments the right way to accomplish what we want. This is one case where that fails. Instead, we need leadership.
Police budgets are taxpayer money. Even if cutting a budget meant laying off officers, there's reason to think that would create problems - the needs of the community wouldn't be reduced, so you'd be having fewer officers doing more, which is both costly (in overtime) and increases fatigue and the likelihood of problematic behavior. And taking it out of the pension fund or otherwise spreading the harm to other officers is both easily gamed and incentivizes cover-ups.
It matters who we elect. A significant faction of the U.S. has been convinced that government is simply bad or ineffective, and they vote for people who deliberately prove that. But if we want to see change we need to elect people who are willing to go to the mat for the things we support.
- dna_polymerase 6y ago> Market-focused rhetoric over the past decades has made it tempting to think we can just allocate payments the right way to accomplish what we want. This is one case where that fails. Instead, we need leadership. No, we don't. We need a system at rewards good behaviour and punishes bad. The market solution is really the best. A solution bound on a single leader vanishes as soon as the leader goes. > It matters who we elect. Things were bad during Obama's reign, as they were under Trump. Biden won't bring change, unless systemic change will be implemented.
- GavinMcG 6y agoWhy focus on presidential elections when we're talking about policing? It matters who we elect at the local level. I think your knee-jerk focus on who the president is (and denying the possibility of change) demonstrates what I was saying: the rhetoric has convinced people that it doesn't matter and it's all some national team sport. That's just not true.
- alentist 6y agoDid you reply to the wrong comment? Your (knee-jerk?) characterization is the opposite of what that comment is saying.
- GavinMcG 6y agoWhat are you talking about? The comment dismissed what I had said about it mattering who we elect, in a shallow and narrowly-focused way. My characterization is indeed the opposite, because I disagree with the comment's premise. That's why I replied.
- alentist 6y agoTheir comment: Things were bad during Obama's reign, as they were under Trump. Biden won't bring change, unless systemic change will be implemented. Your response: I think your knee-jerk focus on who the president is (and denying the possibility of change) demonstrates what I was saying: the rhetoric has convinced people that it doesn't matter and it's all some national team sport.
- GavinMcG 6y agoNaming the three most recent presidents and denying that any of them did or could change things was meant as a direct counter to my claim that it matters who we elect. I replied by pointing out that "who we elect" isn't limited to the presidency. It is entirely useless for you to quote each of us without clarifying what you've misinterpreted.
- alentist 6y ago"focus on who the president is" is the opposite of what they said. "denying the possibility of change" is the opposite of what they did.
- Supermancho 6y ago> The market solution is really the best. If the punishment is monetary, that's for poor people to worry about.
- parineum 6y ago> Market-focused rhetoric over the past decades has made it tempting to think we can just allocate payments the right way to accomplish what we want. I disagree with this but I always find it ironic when I hear the advice to use market forces from a group of people that are highly critical of the capitalist principles of market forces. At least you're consistent, I appreciate that.