4 ms·

I personally view it as the exact opposite. I feel that defense of- and autonomy over- my person and property are the most fundamental tiers of liberty. A socie

I personally view it as the exact opposite. I feel that defense of- and autonomy over- my person and property are the most fundamental tiers of liberty. A society that does not uphold defense of property is effectively arguing for a lack of private property (a certain ideology starting with ‘C’ also has this trait). If we had enough surveillance, police officers, and so forth to catch criminals, hold them to consequences, and deter others, I would support avoiding a stricter law like this. But the reality is cities simply cannot afford the amount of staffing needed to stop these crimes from happening, and I don’t think hardworking taxpayers should have to shoulder that burden. These criminals are also not helpless victims - they are most typically lazy bandits who are breaking down society when they could very easily go get one of the millions of jobs available today and make an honest living through hard work - like the rest of us. If these people want to operate outside what a just society requires, then we need real, harsh consequences so that we have an effective deterrent that will put an end to this. Citizens being able to defend their property without expensive or time-consuming legal complications seems like a great way to have a distributed policing force at no cost, to uphold the very laws that our society has already put on the books.

plantain 5y ago
>If we had enough surveillance, police officers, and so forth to catch criminals, hold them to consequences, and deter others, I would support avoiding a stricter law like this. The fact that you don't, and that you think street executions are a substitute, is what makes it a failed state.
- plantain 5y ago
  https://twitter.com/JodiHernandezTV/status/1462284757434175488 https://twitter.com/JodiHernandezTV/status/14622847574341754... Honestly, what is going on in the US?
  - tick_tock_tick 5y ago
    The punishment for petty crime in cities has been getting smaller and finally reach a threshold that people no longer see it as a real deterrent.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Or there are more desperate people now willing to take the risks than before. Or some combination of both.
      - ianhawes 5y ago
        Ah yes, desperate people that need designer handbags to survive. They’re so desperate, they pull up in their private vehicles to commit such an act of desperation. Their desperation has inspired them to dress in hoodies and a mask to prevent identification.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        I strongly suspect they’re fencing them, and if you’re going to commit a crime a mask is a good idea. As is getting the most bang for your buck, committing crimes repeatedly is a good way to get caught.
      - Eelongate 5y ago
        These aren't desperate people trying to feed their starving infant babies; it's organized crime. Their get away vehicles are often nicer than my car.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        Do you have some data? I’m curious to learn more.
  - twh270 5y ago
    Due to the lack of police enforcement and prosecution by the courts, a segment of the populace has figured out that they can do things like this and get away with it, with no consequences. There's a segment of the population that seems to believe this kind of looting and other theft/crime is largely a product of poverty; that if we would increase the minimum wage, have more affordable housing, and generally improve the conditions of the working poor, that these crimes would go away. I believe that kind of thinking is dangerous and foolish.
  - SyzygistSix 5y ago
    The lack of workers rights, the high price of housing, and the lack of decent social safety nets has helped to create a lot of poor, desperate people and a high property crime rate, high enough that police do not have enough manpower to prevent them or even respond to them.
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  And the fact that we would rather spend the money on ineffective social programs like police and prisons rather than the equivalent on preventative measures that keep our communities from becoming shitty in the first place, like most Western countries do.
gct 5y ago
Texas passed the first version of section 9.42 in 1974, if it's such an effective deterrent, why is the crime still happening? You just hate that poor desperate people have the unmitigated gall to try and survive.
arcticbull 5y ago
The state abdicating its monopoly on violence is the definition of a failed state. The dictionary definition. [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state
- Mirioron 5y ago
  The state allowing lethal force in defense of property is not abdicating a monopoly on violence any more than allowing lethal force in defense of life. In both cases the state is allowing somebody else to use violence, therefore if one counts as abdicating its monopoly on violence then so does the other.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Respectfully disagree.
Mirioron 5y ago
When society does not uphold defense of property you get things like this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/15/walgreens-closures-san-francisco-crime-debate https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/15/walgreens-cl... Unless something is done soon those areas are going to decline. The stores closing is a symptom of there being no safety. It screams "don't do business here". No businesses means no jobs, which means more poverty in the area. Saying that you can't defend property means that you're tolerating this theft. The police don't do anything for property theft. This isn't a uniquely American problem - property theft is just too hard to prove, the legal teeth on it have been neutered in the world etc. The only one that can really stop property theft is yourself, but if you're not allowed to defend it then you can't even do that. Being able to defend your property doesn't stop the problem, but it gives you the ability to do something about it.
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  "Unless something is done soon those areas are going to decline." I think the thing to do would be to not treat people as disposable so that they end up poor, homeless, addicted, and desperate in the first place. I am not opposed to Texas' laws about protecting one's home and property with deadly force but the prevention can come far sooner i the form of better workers' rights, better working conditions, and social safety nets that drastically reduce the number of people incentivized to do things like steal catalytic converters or form organized crime gangs of addicts to routinely rob the Walgreens and CVS. You don't see that kind of thing nearly as often in other wealthy Western countries.

plantain 5y ago

>If we had enough surveillance, police officers, and so forth to catch criminals, hold them to consequences, and deter others, I would support avoiding a stricter law like this. The fact that you don't, and that you think street executions are a substitute, is what makes it a failed state.

plantain 5y ago
https://twitter.com/JodiHernandezTV/status/1462284757434175488 https://twitter.com/JodiHernandezTV/status/14622847574341754... Honestly, what is going on in the US?
- tick_tock_tick 5y ago
  The punishment for petty crime in cities has been getting smaller and finally reach a threshold that people no longer see it as a real deterrent.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Or there are more desperate people now willing to take the risks than before. Or some combination of both.
    - ianhawes 5y ago
      Ah yes, desperate people that need designer handbags to survive. They’re so desperate, they pull up in their private vehicles to commit such an act of desperation. Their desperation has inspired them to dress in hoodies and a mask to prevent identification.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        I strongly suspect they’re fencing them, and if you’re going to commit a crime a mask is a good idea. As is getting the most bang for your buck, committing crimes repeatedly is a good way to get caught.
    - Eelongate 5y ago
      These aren't desperate people trying to feed their starving infant babies; it's organized crime. Their get away vehicles are often nicer than my car.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Do you have some data? I’m curious to learn more.
- twh270 5y ago
  Due to the lack of police enforcement and prosecution by the courts, a segment of the populace has figured out that they can do things like this and get away with it, with no consequences. There's a segment of the population that seems to believe this kind of looting and other theft/crime is largely a product of poverty; that if we would increase the minimum wage, have more affordable housing, and generally improve the conditions of the working poor, that these crimes would go away. I believe that kind of thinking is dangerous and foolish.
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  The lack of workers rights, the high price of housing, and the lack of decent social safety nets has helped to create a lot of poor, desperate people and a high property crime rate, high enough that police do not have enough manpower to prevent them or even respond to them.
SyzygistSix 5y ago
And the fact that we would rather spend the money on ineffective social programs like police and prisons rather than the equivalent on preventative measures that keep our communities from becoming shitty in the first place, like most Western countries do.

gct 5y ago

Texas passed the first version of section 9.42 in 1974, if it's such an effective deterrent, why is the crime still happening? You just hate that poor desperate people have the unmitigated gall to try and survive.

arcticbull 5y ago

The state abdicating its monopoly on violence is the definition of a failed state. The dictionary definition. [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state

Mirioron 5y ago
The state allowing lethal force in defense of property is not abdicating a monopoly on violence any more than allowing lethal force in defense of life. In both cases the state is allowing somebody else to use violence, therefore if one counts as abdicating its monopoly on violence then so does the other.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Respectfully disagree.

Mirioron 5y ago

When society does not uphold defense of property you get things like this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/15/walgreens-closures-san-francisco-crime-debate https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/15/walgreens-cl... Unless something is done soon those areas are going to decline. The stores closing is a symptom of there being no safety. It screams "don't do business here". No businesses means no jobs, which means more poverty in the area. Saying that you can't defend property means that you're tolerating this theft. The police don't do anything for property theft. This isn't a uniquely American problem - property theft is just too hard to prove, the legal teeth on it have been neutered in the world etc. The only one that can really stop property theft is yourself, but if you're not allowed to defend it then you can't even do that. Being able to defend your property doesn't stop the problem, but it gives you the ability to do something about it.

SyzygistSix 5y ago
"Unless something is done soon those areas are going to decline." I think the thing to do would be to not treat people as disposable so that they end up poor, homeless, addicted, and desperate in the first place. I am not opposed to Texas' laws about protecting one's home and property with deadly force but the prevention can come far sooner i the form of better workers' rights, better working conditions, and social safety nets that drastically reduce the number of people incentivized to do things like steal catalytic converters or form organized crime gangs of addicts to routinely rob the Walgreens and CVS. You don't see that kind of thing nearly as often in other wealthy Western countries.