3 ms·

Your argument says that we can improve the police, not that the police is net negative. You said that there are strong arguments for the police being net negati

Your argument says that we can improve the police, not that the police is net negative. You said that there are strong arguments for the police being net negative, that is very extreme. Net negative means that society would improve if we just removed it without replacing it with anything. Can you defend that?

delecti 3y ago
"The police are a net negative" does not mean that they are irreparably terrible, and "net negative" even makes it clear that I think they have some benefits. But yes, I think freeing up that enormous amount of budget for almost any other purpose would be an improvement.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > But yes, I think freeing up that enormous amount of budget for almost any other purpose would be an improvement. Do you have good arguments for this? For example, if we dismantled the entire police force to reduce the government deficit, or to increase healthcare spending, or to reduce taxes, do you really think society would improve? Your examples above didn't dismantle the police entirely and had a very small set of alternative spending. It isn't consistent with what you said in this post. You need to explain why you think that dismantling the entire police force would be a net positive, how do you think that society would work without a police force?
  - PawgerZ 3y ago
    You keep bringing up dismantling the police force, but the person you're repsonding to never said that. Argue against their points, not the positions you have imagined for them in your head. > Your argument says that we can improve the police, not that the police is net negative. >Net negative means that society would improve if we just removed it without replacing it with anything. Can you defend that? Also, net negative means that their negative actions outweigh their positive actions. I don't know how you got the idea that negative == not repairable. You're putting arguments that they didn't say into their mouth. You're only arguing in false dilemmas.
  - asadotzler 3y ago
    If we demolished the police to spend instead on social services and taking care of more people with mental illness, improving fire and EMT services, and providing a very small number of detectives to handle investigating significant crimes, I believe my specific county would be overalls safer. The idea that maintaining public order takes a cop with a gun for every 300 or 400 citizens is just ludicrous. I live in a county with a large rural area and even here we have a cop with a gun for every 600 to 700 citizens which is still far too many. There are over 100 CHP for about 25 miles of highway in the area, for Pete's sake.
ineptech 3y ago
It can simultaneously be true that X causes more problems than it solves, and that the disappearance of X would cause even worse problems. Also, this is a common strawman: almost no one advocates police abolition over police reform, but discussions about police reform very often involve someone who advocates reform being asked to defend abolition anyway.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > It can simultaneously be true that X causes more problems than it solves, and that the disappearance of X would cause even worse problems No it can't, if removing X causes more problems then having X prevents those worse problems. > Also, this is a common strawman: almost no one advocates police abolition over police reform The person I responded to argued just this. This is what police being net negative means, that society would improve by removing the police. I wouldn't have said anything if he just thought that the police could use a budget cut or a reform.

delecti 3y ago

"The police are a net negative" does not mean that they are irreparably terrible, and "net negative" even makes it clear that I think they have some benefits. But yes, I think freeing up that enormous amount of budget for almost any other purpose would be an improvement.

Jensson 3y ago
> But yes, I think freeing up that enormous amount of budget for almost any other purpose would be an improvement. Do you have good arguments for this? For example, if we dismantled the entire police force to reduce the government deficit, or to increase healthcare spending, or to reduce taxes, do you really think society would improve? Your examples above didn't dismantle the police entirely and had a very small set of alternative spending. It isn't consistent with what you said in this post. You need to explain why you think that dismantling the entire police force would be a net positive, how do you think that society would work without a police force?
- PawgerZ 3y ago
  You keep bringing up dismantling the police force, but the person you're repsonding to never said that. Argue against their points, not the positions you have imagined for them in your head. > Your argument says that we can improve the police, not that the police is net negative. >Net negative means that society would improve if we just removed it without replacing it with anything. Can you defend that? Also, net negative means that their negative actions outweigh their positive actions. I don't know how you got the idea that negative == not repairable. You're putting arguments that they didn't say into their mouth. You're only arguing in false dilemmas.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  If we demolished the police to spend instead on social services and taking care of more people with mental illness, improving fire and EMT services, and providing a very small number of detectives to handle investigating significant crimes, I believe my specific county would be overalls safer. The idea that maintaining public order takes a cop with a gun for every 300 or 400 citizens is just ludicrous. I live in a county with a large rural area and even here we have a cop with a gun for every 600 to 700 citizens which is still far too many. There are over 100 CHP for about 25 miles of highway in the area, for Pete's sake.

ineptech 3y ago

It can simultaneously be true that X causes more problems than it solves, and that the disappearance of X would cause even worse problems. Also, this is a common strawman: almost no one advocates police abolition over police reform, but discussions about police reform very often involve someone who advocates reform being asked to defend abolition anyway.

Jensson 3y ago
> It can simultaneously be true that X causes more problems than it solves, and that the disappearance of X would cause even worse problems No it can't, if removing X causes more problems then having X prevents those worse problems. > Also, this is a common strawman: almost no one advocates police abolition over police reform The person I responded to argued just this. This is what police being net negative means, that society would improve by removing the police. I wouldn't have said anything if he just thought that the police could use a budget cut or a reform.