3 ms·

To answer the headlines question: no [0] San Francisco’s “Crime Woes” will continue to exist until US National policy creates a stronger safety net for the lea

by RC_ITR 3y ago

To answer the headlines question: no [0] San Francisco’s “Crime Woes” will continue to exist until US National policy creates a stronger safety net for the least fortunate among us or San Francisco’s politics take a hard turn right toward protecting property rights over all else. I don’t know which is more likely, but both will require systematic change, not a couple guys playing police. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines#:~:text=A%20headline%20with%20a%20question,%2C%20preferably%2C%20a%20national%20panic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli....

lockhouse 3y ago
> US National policy creates a stronger safety net for the least fortunate among us What further safety nets do you feel are necessary that are not provided by the state of California?
- RC_ITR 3y ago
  Guaranteed housing for all people? EDIT: Just for context, relatively free-market oriented Singapore and Hong Kong both invested heavily in government funded housing to solve similar homelessness crises in the 20th Century. So much so that that overwhelming majority of people in Singapore live in housing developed by the government. It’s also used as a very effective form of soft social control (get a better house if you do X thing we want), so it’s not unreasonable to assume that it would meaningfully reduce crime as well. [0] https://www.economist.com/asia/2017/07/06/why-80-of-singaporeans-live-in-government-built-flats https://www.economist.com/asia/2017/07/06/why-80-of-singapor...
polski-g 3y ago
> I guess the typical upper-middle-class progressive must always be secretly suspicious of themselves, always unsure whether they’d become a total monster if they were to miss a couple paychecks. “Poverty causes crime,” they must scream into their pillows at night, knowing not whether they too would commit atrocities if they couldn’t afford an iPad. https://twitter.com/wanyeburkett/status/1645439924886290433 https://twitter.com/wanyeburkett/status/1645439924886290433
- RC_ITR 3y ago
  It’s amazing that people accept we live under capitalism and accept that MIT physics graduates will work 80+ hours a week at a quant trading firm just to make money, but we somehow believe that people who have no other options won’t resort to crime. The crime people are mad about in SF is petty theft of consumer packaged goods and food, with some opportunistic car robberies. That is the crime this org would try to fight. If your implication is that these criminals are just morally bankrupt people, I find that thesis much more demeaning and implausible. EDIT: Don’t forget that the guy called himself “poor” and claims he isn’t now. The problem isn’t lack of money now, it’s lack of opportunity. That guy didn’t steal because he knew it would limit future opportunities. Being poor doesn’t cause crime, being impoverished with not hope for a better life following the law is.
  - polski-g 3y ago
    There are millions of "impoverished" people in NYC. Yet the NYPD came out and said that 85% of all property crime is committed by less than 600 individuals. Not a smattering of random poor people. Not a random sampling of the millions of poor people in the city. These specific 600 individuals. Yes: they are morally bankrupt individuals. They commit crime because they chose to, not because they are "poor".
    - RC_ITR 3y ago
      > that 85% of all property crime is committed by less than 600 individuals. I’d like to know how an organization that claims they cannot find/arrest the suspects in nearly any property crime can also claim with such certainty that they know exactly who commits these crimes. Doesn’t really make sense, does it?

by RC_ITR 3y ago

lockhouse 3y ago

> US National policy creates a stronger safety net for the least fortunate among us What further safety nets do you feel are necessary that are not provided by the state of California?

RC_ITR 3y ago
Guaranteed housing for all people? EDIT: Just for context, relatively free-market oriented Singapore and Hong Kong both invested heavily in government funded housing to solve similar homelessness crises in the 20th Century. So much so that that overwhelming majority of people in Singapore live in housing developed by the government. It’s also used as a very effective form of soft social control (get a better house if you do X thing we want), so it’s not unreasonable to assume that it would meaningfully reduce crime as well. [0] https://www.economist.com/asia/2017/07/06/why-80-of-singaporeans-live-in-government-built-flats https://www.economist.com/asia/2017/07/06/why-80-of-singapor...

polski-g 3y ago

> I guess the typical upper-middle-class progressive must always be secretly suspicious of themselves, always unsure whether they’d become a total monster if they were to miss a couple paychecks. “Poverty causes crime,” they must scream into their pillows at night, knowing not whether they too would commit atrocities if they couldn’t afford an iPad. https://twitter.com/wanyeburkett/status/1645439924886290433 https://twitter.com/wanyeburkett/status/1645439924886290433

RC_ITR 3y ago
It’s amazing that people accept we live under capitalism and accept that MIT physics graduates will work 80+ hours a week at a quant trading firm just to make money, but we somehow believe that people who have no other options won’t resort to crime. The crime people are mad about in SF is petty theft of consumer packaged goods and food, with some opportunistic car robberies. That is the crime this org would try to fight. If your implication is that these criminals are just morally bankrupt people, I find that thesis much more demeaning and implausible. EDIT: Don’t forget that the guy called himself “poor” and claims he isn’t now. The problem isn’t lack of money now, it’s lack of opportunity. That guy didn’t steal because he knew it would limit future opportunities. Being poor doesn’t cause crime, being impoverished with not hope for a better life following the law is.
- polski-g 3y ago
  There are millions of "impoverished" people in NYC. Yet the NYPD came out and said that 85% of all property crime is committed by less than 600 individuals. Not a smattering of random poor people. Not a random sampling of the millions of poor people in the city. These specific 600 individuals. Yes: they are morally bankrupt individuals. They commit crime because they chose to, not because they are "poor".
  - RC_ITR 3y ago
    > that 85% of all property crime is committed by less than 600 individuals. I’d like to know how an organization that claims they cannot find/arrest the suspects in nearly any property crime can also claim with such certainty that they know exactly who commits these crimes. Doesn’t really make sense, does it?