4 ms·

Politicians gain power at the federal level by railing against petty street crime because people feel the local level has been so totally captured by people div

by _bin_ 1y ago

Politicians gain power at the federal level by railing against petty street crime because people feel the local level has been so totally captured by people divorced from their priorities. So, they turn to the feds hoping they can fix things instead. I don't think wanting a safe neighborhood clean of debris and crime is necessarily "right-wing", and this is precisely my point. A few years ago I co-founded a non-profit working mostly with inner-city youth, got to know them and their parents well. One of the primary complaints their parents had was the fact that "justice" initiatives and policing changes had increased the level of crime in bad neighborhoods which victimized them. They weren't any less hurt than the suburbanites who wanted to avoid their cars getting burgled. They weren't less-affected because they didn't live in 1000+sqft houses commuting an hour each way. I don't think crime exists because of low revenues in inner cities. Everything I know about American history shows it flowed the opposite way: people expanded because they didn't want to be around crime and other inconveniences of living close into cities; that crime didn't show up because people expanded. I don't think Tan wants to punish people intrinsically, I think he wants to focus on the 99% of people who are victimized by crime rather than the 1% who commit it. This isn't really about country-club isolation, it's just as much, maybe more, about people living in cities being able to live in peace. Without feces on the streets, without fear of property or violent crime. Social spending on poor people predisposed to these types of crime has only gone up over the past decades. Crime hasn't magically fallen in proportion with that spending. This suggests that it's not the silver bullet for solving this problem. Additionally, SF has spent huge amounts of money on "housing-first" policies which have broadly failed because they don't recognize that a large number of the homeless aren't really that willing to seek treatment or to go to inpatient psych care where they belong. And lastly, the middle class is still the bulk of America. Telling them that they must sacrifice their dreams of raising a family in peace, consign themselves and their families to petty crime so Fred Junkie can buy fent, accept their wives and daughters won't feel safe being out past dark, is just a non-starter. I consider it deeply immoral, but politically, it's simply not expedient. No party that holds up this as its moral paradigm can be expected to win.

resters 1y ago
> A few years ago I co-founded a non-profit working mostly with inner-city youth I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply and give major credit to you for being personally and directly involved. Much respect. People wanting to be able to live in a safe environment free from violence and coercion is the essence of the social contract. We create institutional structures like a judicial system and penal system in an attempt to create fair systems that create the desired incentives for all. There are certainly a small number of people who suffer from mental illness and substance abuse challenges that render them incapable of participating in the social contract in the same way as other people. Society has replaced private charity with state welfare which also includes care for the elderly, for orphans, etc. I think the defining characteristic of a properly functioning social contract is that it provides an incentive for everyone to cooperate and to preserve the status quo. SF is at a disadvantage because of how badly other cities treat the underserved. I've heard stories even about private hospitals in SF putting very ill homeless patients in a taxi and sending them to the public hospital (in violation of a multitude of laws and ethical standards), and a similar scenario exists with other cities that are less hospitable to the have nots. Thus SF has become a sanctuary city. Much like a bird sanctuary that offers habitat to beings that would otherwise starve or die off, SF provides habitat for humans who simply would not have anywhere to go. In the past we've had laws that criminalize drugs and prevent many modes of treatment, creating a drug epidemic in the US far worse than exists in places that provide care without moral judgment. But in the US moral judgment is insatiable and sells politically. That's why I am trying to help identify what I call the "right-wing impulse", the idea of the downtrodden as the political "other" that must be feared and stopped. While any kind of dehumanization rhetoric is harmful and cuts of empathy and critical thought, dehumanization targeting the weakest in society has been strongly on the rise in the US in recent years. In my view, the post-911 response of "see something, say something" and widespread, state sponsored suspicion of brown people fueled what would eventually become Trump's anti-immigrant (fundamentally anti-brown) movement. The US Government spent billions on advertising telling us to fear or neighbors. The right wing impulse is what the public is trained to have by that kind of advertising. The idea that we should be suspicious, fearful, and that policing and surveillance is the solution. Much like an abundant apple orchard will attract all kinds of species with the smell of blossoms and fruit, an abundant society will attract people from all walks of life. It will give hope to those who are too damaged to be contributors to society and whose role it is to receive charity. I think we need to change our impulse response from the right-wing one to the realization that it is our good fortune that makes our cities places where those with no hope go to find hope.

by _bin_ 1y ago

resters 1y ago

> A few years ago I co-founded a non-profit working mostly with inner-city youth I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply and give major credit to you for being personally and directly involved. Much respect. People wanting to be able to live in a safe environment free from violence and coercion is the essence of the social contract. We create institutional structures like a judicial system and penal system in an attempt to create fair systems that create the desired incentives for all. There are certainly a small number of people who suffer from mental illness and substance abuse challenges that render them incapable of participating in the social contract in the same way as other people. Society has replaced private charity with state welfare which also includes care for the elderly, for orphans, etc. I think the defining characteristic of a properly functioning social contract is that it provides an incentive for everyone to cooperate and to preserve the status quo. SF is at a disadvantage because of how badly other cities treat the underserved. I've heard stories even about private hospitals in SF putting very ill homeless patients in a taxi and sending them to the public hospital (in violation of a multitude of laws and ethical standards), and a similar scenario exists with other cities that are less hospitable to the have nots. Thus SF has become a sanctuary city. Much like a bird sanctuary that offers habitat to beings that would otherwise starve or die off, SF provides habitat for humans who simply would not have anywhere to go. In the past we've had laws that criminalize drugs and prevent many modes of treatment, creating a drug epidemic in the US far worse than exists in places that provide care without moral judgment. But in the US moral judgment is insatiable and sells politically. That's why I am trying to help identify what I call the "right-wing impulse", the idea of the downtrodden as the political "other" that must be feared and stopped. While any kind of dehumanization rhetoric is harmful and cuts of empathy and critical thought, dehumanization targeting the weakest in society has been strongly on the rise in the US in recent years. In my view, the post-911 response of "see something, say something" and widespread, state sponsored suspicion of brown people fueled what would eventually become Trump's anti-immigrant (fundamentally anti-brown) movement. The US Government spent billions on advertising telling us to fear or neighbors. The right wing impulse is what the public is trained to have by that kind of advertising. The idea that we should be suspicious, fearful, and that policing and surveillance is the solution. Much like an abundant apple orchard will attract all kinds of species with the smell of blossoms and fruit, an abundant society will attract people from all walks of life. It will give hope to those who are too damaged to be contributors to society and whose role it is to receive charity. I think we need to change our impulse response from the right-wing one to the realization that it is our good fortune that makes our cities places where those with no hope go to find hope.