6 ms·

> "The stores are insured bro, why do you care if people steal from them? It's not your problem maaan." This is why I care. Criminals degrade society and we

> "The stores are insured bro, why do you care if people steal from them? It's not your problem maaan." This is why I care. Criminals degrade society and we all suffer for their greed.

flandish 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mattigames 4y ago
But society first needs to be in a degraded state for most criminals to exist, as most only meet their basic needs through criminal means, such as food, shelter, health and education.
- Eleison23 4y ago
  Society has been persistently degraded since time immemorial, because of the presence of organized crime. The only thing that's changed since Prohibition is the genetic makeup of the gangstas who are in charge. #BlackLivesMatter came about because the police have been--somewhat unwillingly--waging open warfare against gangbangers for decades in the inner city. The gangbangers all have guns and the cops have heavy weaponry that sometimes protects them and oftentimes blows away a few low-ranked gangbangers who might've just completed initiation, or weren't even affiliated but just hanging out at a party. So what #BLM and #DefundthePolice people are saying is, enough is enough with this open warfare, you're killing children and innocent people, the cops are too powerful. But gangs offer societal structure: they offer belonging, they offer community, they offer encouragement and brotherhood. They offer economic opportunity. They offer lifelong careerism. That flavor of opportunity can't be had in a public school or a legitimate job. So gangs aren't going away; gangs are part of the fabric of society because they're providing tangible benefits for many members and non-members alike. But how will they disarm themselves? How will they offer truces to the cops and reconcile, swords into plowshares? If gangs don't go away then they need to be pacified or the open gang warfare will continue to get cops involved, and the gangs will continue to shoplift and fence and operate all sorts of low-level criminal enterprise with impunity. So what to fix? Save the family - save the world.
- ben_w 4y ago
  To say "most" criminals thusly, presupposes that all societies are in degraded states, regardless of the actual causes of criminality.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mattigames 4y ago
    "Most" in the absolute terms, not in the relative (e.g. percentual) way you may be interpreting my comment. And anyway there is always going to be criminals, but its not remotely the same thing when your national average thief steals one thing per year vs one thing per day.
somesortofthing 4y ago
If you want law enforcement to deal with petty crimes, you're going to have to contend with the externalities of cops operating anywhere. How many bystanders and innocent people reported by paranoid suburbanites are you willing to see injured or killed to protect that deodorant shelf?
- draw_down 4y ago
- atian 4y ago
  California did something really interesting by removing that complexity completely.
  - somesortofthing 4y ago
    And dozens of people have been spared serious injuries or mysterious "deaths in custody" as a result. Maybe you'd prefer some deodorant to that, but I don't.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Car culture has done this. The destruction of regular meeting places that get you to know and trust your neighbours. Now everyone you see is an untrusted stranger.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    >Now everyone you see is an untrusted stranger. People have been complaining about this since the advent of cities.
  - uejfiweun 4y ago
    I think cars are only a symptom of the real issue, which is that the scale of modern society is just too big for our brains to comprehend or handle. I don't think getting rid of cars would necessarily help one cope with the fact that 99.9999% of people you see are untrusted strangers.
TheRealPomax 4y ago
That sounds a little like you think criminals aren't a necessary symptom of "living in a scarcity society" itself...? As long as it's easier to take something than it is to pay for something, there will be people who take, and there will be groups that organize around taking. Pretending that crime is some kind of quirk that you can get rid of if only [fill in reasons here], and that the grey and black markets wouldn't exist if only we didn't have crime, implies a lack of understanding when it comes to socioeconomics. Unless you know how to get us to a post-scarcity world of course, in which case: please make that happen. We're all tired.
- chucksmash 4y ago
  I used to be able to go buy a stick of deodorant without waiting five minutes for somebody to come over with a key and get it for me. That economics has a just-so story to explain why this is exactly what I should expect doesn't change the fact that I didn't used to have to do this, and now I do have to do this.
  - TheRealPomax 4y ago
    Oh no, inconvenience! Welcome to everyone who needs to buy some rubbing alcohol. You can live with it just fine.
- philwelch 4y ago
  > As long as it's easier to take something than it is to pay for something, there will be people who take, and there will be groups that organize around taking. One of the basic functions of the state is to make it difficult for people to steal things.
  - mattigames 4y ago
    Up to a point, if the money spend into making it difficult is clearly lacking in root problems that are causing people to become criminals in the first place then other forms of governments will quickly become attractive and the likelihood to create civil unrest.
jakelazaroff 4y ago
That’s one perspective. Another is that the truly greedy thing is to construct a society such that some people can’t afford basic necessities, and that inflicts far more suffering than people stealing what they need to live.
- hellfish 4y ago
  > to construct a society Did anyone in particular construct this society, or was it just given? You can't judge society at large by the same ethical standard that you judge an individual
- Aerroon 4y ago
  What are these "basic necessities"? To me it seems like it's an ever-increasing list of things that were largely created in the modern era. A person from a few hundred years would hardly consider deodorant a basic necessity. We consider them basic necessities, because we're used to them, but all these new inventions had to be made by somebody. The profit motive seems to be quite good at incentivizing people to do just that. If we discourage that then the basic necessities of tomorrow might not get invented. Society doesn't conspire to cause poverty, nature already inflicted that upon us.
- SnowHill9902 4y ago
  Jeez
- sokoloff 4y ago
  The struggle to survive is the starting condition in nature. That society doesn’t completely eradicate it (but only makes great strides in that direction) is not an indictment of society.
  - mongol 4y ago
    I did not consider it like this before but it is so true. Society is not a given, and it is not a perfect fabric in which evil people tore holes. Instead it is woven by everyone that acts in it.
  - 4y ago

> "The stores are insured bro, why do you care if people steal from them? It's not your problem maaan." This is why I care. Criminals degrade society and we all suffer for their greed.

flandish 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mattigames 4y ago

But society first needs to be in a degraded state for most criminals to exist, as most only meet their basic needs through criminal means, such as food, shelter, health and education.

Eleison23 4y ago
Society has been persistently degraded since time immemorial, because of the presence of organized crime. The only thing that's changed since Prohibition is the genetic makeup of the gangstas who are in charge. #BlackLivesMatter came about because the police have been--somewhat unwillingly--waging open warfare against gangbangers for decades in the inner city. The gangbangers all have guns and the cops have heavy weaponry that sometimes protects them and oftentimes blows away a few low-ranked gangbangers who might've just completed initiation, or weren't even affiliated but just hanging out at a party. So what #BLM and #DefundthePolice people are saying is, enough is enough with this open warfare, you're killing children and innocent people, the cops are too powerful. But gangs offer societal structure: they offer belonging, they offer community, they offer encouragement and brotherhood. They offer economic opportunity. They offer lifelong careerism. That flavor of opportunity can't be had in a public school or a legitimate job. So gangs aren't going away; gangs are part of the fabric of society because they're providing tangible benefits for many members and non-members alike. But how will they disarm themselves? How will they offer truces to the cops and reconcile, swords into plowshares? If gangs don't go away then they need to be pacified or the open gang warfare will continue to get cops involved, and the gangs will continue to shoplift and fence and operate all sorts of low-level criminal enterprise with impunity. So what to fix? Save the family - save the world.
ben_w 4y ago
To say "most" criminals thusly, presupposes that all societies are in degraded states, regardless of the actual causes of criminality.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mattigames 4y ago
  "Most" in the absolute terms, not in the relative (e.g. percentual) way you may be interpreting my comment. And anyway there is always going to be criminals, but its not remotely the same thing when your national average thief steals one thing per year vs one thing per day.

somesortofthing 4y ago

If you want law enforcement to deal with petty crimes, you're going to have to contend with the externalities of cops operating anywhere. How many bystanders and innocent people reported by paranoid suburbanites are you willing to see injured or killed to protect that deodorant shelf?

draw_down 4y ago
atian 4y ago
California did something really interesting by removing that complexity completely.
- somesortofthing 4y ago
  And dozens of people have been spared serious injuries or mysterious "deaths in custody" as a result. Maybe you'd prefer some deodorant to that, but I don't.
Gigachad 4y ago
Car culture has done this. The destruction of regular meeting places that get you to know and trust your neighbours. Now everyone you see is an untrusted stranger.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >Now everyone you see is an untrusted stranger. People have been complaining about this since the advent of cities.
- uejfiweun 4y ago
  I think cars are only a symptom of the real issue, which is that the scale of modern society is just too big for our brains to comprehend or handle. I don't think getting rid of cars would necessarily help one cope with the fact that 99.9999% of people you see are untrusted strangers.

TheRealPomax 4y ago

That sounds a little like you think criminals aren't a necessary symptom of "living in a scarcity society" itself...? As long as it's easier to take something than it is to pay for something, there will be people who take, and there will be groups that organize around taking. Pretending that crime is some kind of quirk that you can get rid of if only [fill in reasons here], and that the grey and black markets wouldn't exist if only we didn't have crime, implies a lack of understanding when it comes to socioeconomics. Unless you know how to get us to a post-scarcity world of course, in which case: please make that happen. We're all tired.

chucksmash 4y ago
I used to be able to go buy a stick of deodorant without waiting five minutes for somebody to come over with a key and get it for me. That economics has a just-so story to explain why this is exactly what I should expect doesn't change the fact that I didn't used to have to do this, and now I do have to do this.
- TheRealPomax 4y ago
  Oh no, inconvenience! Welcome to everyone who needs to buy some rubbing alcohol. You can live with it just fine.
philwelch 4y ago
> As long as it's easier to take something than it is to pay for something, there will be people who take, and there will be groups that organize around taking. One of the basic functions of the state is to make it difficult for people to steal things.
- mattigames 4y ago
  Up to a point, if the money spend into making it difficult is clearly lacking in root problems that are causing people to become criminals in the first place then other forms of governments will quickly become attractive and the likelihood to create civil unrest.

jakelazaroff 4y ago

That’s one perspective. Another is that the truly greedy thing is to construct a society such that some people can’t afford basic necessities, and that inflicts far more suffering than people stealing what they need to live.

hellfish 4y ago
> to construct a society Did anyone in particular construct this society, or was it just given? You can't judge society at large by the same ethical standard that you judge an individual
Aerroon 4y ago
What are these "basic necessities"? To me it seems like it's an ever-increasing list of things that were largely created in the modern era. A person from a few hundred years would hardly consider deodorant a basic necessity. We consider them basic necessities, because we're used to them, but all these new inventions had to be made by somebody. The profit motive seems to be quite good at incentivizing people to do just that. If we discourage that then the basic necessities of tomorrow might not get invented. Society doesn't conspire to cause poverty, nature already inflicted that upon us.
SnowHill9902 4y ago
Jeez
sokoloff 4y ago
The struggle to survive is the starting condition in nature. That society doesn’t completely eradicate it (but only makes great strides in that direction) is not an indictment of society.
- mongol 4y ago
  I did not consider it like this before but it is so true. Society is not a given, and it is not a perfect fabric in which evil people tore holes. Instead it is woven by everyone that acts in it.
- 4y ago