3 ms·

I'd think you'd be surprised, the prevailing elite opinion in progressive circles seems to be that application of coercive force (which is what makes a governme

I'd think you'd be surprised, the prevailing elite opinion in progressive circles seems to be that application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost. I don't think this is the opinion of most people, but it seems to be where many policy makers and "thought leaders" (:eye-roll:) are at. AND, the current law in place is that ZERO coercion/force can be applied to homeless people. Just read what Mayor Breed said, it sounds like they cannot enforce any type of nuisance, public safety, or sanitation laws against homeless people.

pseudalopex 3y ago
> I'd think you'd be surprised, the prevailing elite opinion in progressive circles seems to be that application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost. Most who rail against progressive elites make the opposite claim.
- evancox100 3y ago
  That may be the case, but just as an example, elite progressive opinion seems to have shifted to a nonsensical "pro-gun control, anti-arresting people for gun crimes".
tech_ken 3y ago
>application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost I think this statement is eminently reasonable. Although a monopoly on coercive force is one important defining feature of government, I think it's desirable to have its minimization as the highest priority. Moreover, I think in the US our baseline for appropriate levels of coercive force is far too high. > the current law in place is that ZERO coercion/force can be applied to homeless people As I was stressing earlier, if we don't have a reasonable outcome at the other end of the coercive force applying it anyway is unethical and ineffective. I don't believe that they are legally prevented from enforcing eg. noise ordinances (could be wrong here). They are merely prevented from throwing out someone's tent and kicking them to the next block.
- evancox100 3y ago
  > > application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost > I think this statement is eminently reasonable. Although a monopoly on coercive force is one important defining feature of government, I think it's desirable to have its minimization as the highest priority. Moreover, I think in the US our baseline for appropriate levels of coercive force is far too high. Agree to disagree. I think coercive force should applied where appropriate, not avoided at any and all cost (a very strong qualifier). For instance, releasing defendants with GPS monitors prior to trial, and then arresting them and holding them in jail if they violate the terms of the release. Meanwhile, coercive force in the form of escalating fines and, eventually, imprisonment, is applied to people who would dare to build apartments on their own land and then rent them to others. Where is the outcry over that? It is truly a tragedy of our own making.

pseudalopex 3y ago

> I'd think you'd be surprised, the prevailing elite opinion in progressive circles seems to be that application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost. Most who rail against progressive elites make the opposite claim.

evancox100 3y ago
That may be the case, but just as an example, elite progressive opinion seems to have shifted to a nonsensical "pro-gun control, anti-arresting people for gun crimes".

tech_ken 3y ago

>application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost I think this statement is eminently reasonable. Although a monopoly on coercive force is one important defining feature of government, I think it's desirable to have its minimization as the highest priority. Moreover, I think in the US our baseline for appropriate levels of coercive force is far too high. > the current law in place is that ZERO coercion/force can be applied to homeless people As I was stressing earlier, if we don't have a reasonable outcome at the other end of the coercive force applying it anyway is unethical and ineffective. I don't believe that they are legally prevented from enforcing eg. noise ordinances (could be wrong here). They are merely prevented from throwing out someone's tent and kicking them to the next block.

evancox100 3y ago
> > application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost > I think this statement is eminently reasonable. Although a monopoly on coercive force is one important defining feature of government, I think it's desirable to have its minimization as the highest priority. Moreover, I think in the US our baseline for appropriate levels of coercive force is far too high. Agree to disagree. I think coercive force should applied where appropriate, not avoided at any and all cost (a very strong qualifier). For instance, releasing defendants with GPS monitors prior to trial, and then arresting them and holding them in jail if they violate the terms of the release. Meanwhile, coercive force in the form of escalating fines and, eventually, imprisonment, is applied to people who would dare to build apartments on their own land and then rent them to others. Where is the outcry over that? It is truly a tragedy of our own making.