5 ms·

I hope you don’t find yourself in one of the out groups in the fascist state you seem so eager for. There’s a reason you don’t turn the military on the citizenr

I hope you don’t find yourself in one of the out groups in the fascist state you seem so eager for. There’s a reason you don’t turn the military on the citizenry. They’re for fighting the enemies of the nation and the police are for maintaining order. When the military become the police, the citizenry become the enemy of the nation.

scarface_74 1y ago
Costa Rica (a country my wife and I are seriously looking at moving to in retirement and planning to spend a couple of months there every year starting next year) famously doesn’t have a military to prevent military coups and to put more money into their excellent universal health care system among other things.
- rayiner 1y ago
  Costa Rica's homicide rate is 17 per 100,000 people. You probably won't notice it living in whatever expatriate enclave you and your wife are looking at, but that's a crushing burden on the average person in the country.
  - stubish 1y ago
    Is this just an anecdote, or are you claiming that having a military would somehow reduce the homicide rate? How would this work in practice?
    - netsharc 1y ago
      Probably by having the panopticon-effect. The same way a surveillance camera in every room would also reduce bad behavior...
      - AstralStorm 1y ago
        Only way to achieve that is if people are afraid of these forces and perceive them as effective at policing. If they're not, nothing will happen.
        scarface_74 1y ago
        And considering that the US has the highest murder rate among first world countries, highest incarceration rate and spends the most on the military. Obvious the US is doing something wrong.
  - fakedang 1y ago
    Costa Rica is also turning into the new haven for the drug cartels to run ops, after they were evicted from El Salvador, and the lack of a military certainly does not help here.
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      And the military stops drugs in the US?
      - fakedang 1y ago
        Let's not look at overmilitarized countries like the US. And yes, for most countries in Latin America such as Mexico and Colombia, direct conflict with cartels is handled by the military, while internally handled by the police and justice branches.
  - werrett 1y ago
    While appalling I don’t think you would find it 'crushing', even ignoring the jibe about expat conclaves. Costa Rica’s 17 in 100k is ~2.5 times bigger than the US’ 6 in 100k people killed by homicide. Thanks to gun crime, the US’ homicide rates are at least 7x the rest of the first world, anglophone, countries where rates are sub 1 in 100k. By that measure it is 2-3x more confronting, to move from the United Kingdom to the States than it is from the US to Costa Rica.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      > Thanks to gun crime, the US’ homicide rates are at least 7x the rest of the first world, anglophone, countries where rates are sub 1 in 100k. Except it's not "thanks to gun crime." Some of the states with the lowest homicide rates, like Idaho and Utah, have the most guns.
      - acdha 1y ago
        You’re conflating two different things. The number of guns in absolute terms doesn’t matter as much as availability to people who are inclined to commit crimes: a collector / prepper going from 10 to 11 guns affects the total count but doesn’t impact the crime stats the way an angry teenager going from 0 to 1 gun does. This is why it’s misleading to talk about state-level stats without accounting for density: Idaho has a lower crime rate because it is mostly rural and has a single large city, which isn’t that big. Crime is a function of population, not land.
        potato3732842 1y ago
        >This is why it’s misleading to talk about state-level stats without accounting for density: Idaho has a lower crime rate because it is mostly rural and has a single large city, which isn’t that big. Crime is a function of population, not land. Don't you mean function of density or was that a slight of hand rather than a typo? Like compare Wyoming to 1/16 of NYC or 16x Wyoming and compare it to all of NYC. They're about equal in population but the rates per capita are per capita so they're unchanged whether you multiply one or divide the other.
  - Avshalom 1y ago
    Meh, that's not really any worse than Albuquerque and I haven't been murdered once here.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    The city I spent all of my childhood and went to college in had a murder rate in the 20s per 100,000 the year I graduated. It wasn’t a large city. Retirement is a long way away. But next year, we have an Airbnb in Escazu, a suburb of San Jose that is safe. It’s a high rise condo 2/2 with a gym and a pool. The murder rate in “Atlanta” is also still around 20 per 100,000 and I lived in various suburbs of metro Atlanta until 2022 and was never in fear of my life going into the city. But I also lived in a suburban enclaves there. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to be one of these ignorant entitled Americans who refuse to learn Spanish. I am close to A2 level Spanish now and should be there by the time we go next year. I can hold simple conversations.
bombcar 1y ago
When the police are already militarized, and can utilize military-grade vehicles and weapons on those who don’t have the right height of grass, does it really matter much anymore?
- Tyrubias 1y ago
  I’m not sure if I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying but I think it does matter. First of all, the police shouldn’t be militarized, so the fact that they already are doesn’t make it any better. Second of all, the military is fundamentally different from the police, who are at least nominally controlled by the city (yes, I know the President can and has taken control of the D.C. police). The people of D.C. shouldn’t be policed by a force that doesn’t answer to them, especially since the vast majority of them didn’t vote for the federal administration that’s currently seizing control of municipal law enforcement.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Yes, it does matter. The chain of command is entirely different.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  >When the police are already militarized, and can utilize military-grade vehicles and weapons on those who don’t have the right height of grass, does it really matter much anymore? Why is grass height any of the government's business? Who voted for the people who did that? Who came up with the legal theories under which those laws exist? Why were these ever a justifiable pretense for the government to threaten people with force in the first place? We all know the argument. It's some mumbo jumbo about mice and pests and public health, about blight and property values, and government interest in those things. But now the people (demographically, if not literally the same individuals in some cases) who were the ones peddling it are the ones threatened by it and it's made immediately clear to them how bullshit their justification was. I feel like I'm the fucking goose chasing the guy in the down coat and I don't want to be.
  - bombcar 1y ago
    It wasn't a law-based one, but it escalated from a HOA requirement. Anything eventually involves the military shooting nukes at you.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
arethuza 1y ago
Look at the UK experience in Northern Ireland - not something to be emulated.
penguin202 1y ago
[flagged]
- Weryj 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    And Socialism step 1. And monarchy step 1. Category error.
    - Weryj 1y ago
      Again, not Socialism, sub-categories of it, sure. However Social Democracy is the goal and that's not its step 1.
      - philipallstar 1y ago
        Yeah, maybe certain types of fascism are great too. I wouldn't count on it for it or socialism, though.
        ben_w 1y ago
        At various points, several western European nations have been "democratic socialist", with varying degrees of success. Not so much of those since the end of the Cold War, but they were generally on the liberal side when it came to personal freedom. For example, the UK — and sure, the UK had The Troubles and all the associated awfulness, and the Empire for some of that period, ditto — the police forces in England, Scotland, and Wales were not (and still are not) routinely armed.
        philipallstar 1y ago
        Well, yes, but the next problem to talk about is definitions. Democratic socialism is a name that's not really socialist. Socialism is state control of the economy. That's fundamentally different to creaming the top off a capitalist economy. Now if the UK enlarges the state to the point where the NHS owns everything and all resource allocation is directed by some bureaucrats, then, sure it's actual socialism. Until then it's capitalism with a giant all-powerful anchor attached called the state.

scarface_74 1y ago

Costa Rica (a country my wife and I are seriously looking at moving to in retirement and planning to spend a couple of months there every year starting next year) famously doesn’t have a military to prevent military coups and to put more money into their excellent universal health care system among other things.

rayiner 1y ago
Costa Rica's homicide rate is 17 per 100,000 people. You probably won't notice it living in whatever expatriate enclave you and your wife are looking at, but that's a crushing burden on the average person in the country.
- stubish 1y ago
  Is this just an anecdote, or are you claiming that having a military would somehow reduce the homicide rate? How would this work in practice?
  - netsharc 1y ago
    Probably by having the panopticon-effect. The same way a surveillance camera in every room would also reduce bad behavior...
    - AstralStorm 1y ago
      Only way to achieve that is if people are afraid of these forces and perceive them as effective at policing. If they're not, nothing will happen.
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        And considering that the US has the highest murder rate among first world countries, highest incarceration rate and spends the most on the military. Obvious the US is doing something wrong.
- fakedang 1y ago
  Costa Rica is also turning into the new haven for the drug cartels to run ops, after they were evicted from El Salvador, and the lack of a military certainly does not help here.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    And the military stops drugs in the US?
    - fakedang 1y ago
      Let's not look at overmilitarized countries like the US. And yes, for most countries in Latin America such as Mexico and Colombia, direct conflict with cartels is handled by the military, while internally handled by the police and justice branches.
- werrett 1y ago
  While appalling I don’t think you would find it 'crushing', even ignoring the jibe about expat conclaves. Costa Rica’s 17 in 100k is ~2.5 times bigger than the US’ 6 in 100k people killed by homicide. Thanks to gun crime, the US’ homicide rates are at least 7x the rest of the first world, anglophone, countries where rates are sub 1 in 100k. By that measure it is 2-3x more confronting, to move from the United Kingdom to the States than it is from the US to Costa Rica.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > Thanks to gun crime, the US’ homicide rates are at least 7x the rest of the first world, anglophone, countries where rates are sub 1 in 100k. Except it's not "thanks to gun crime." Some of the states with the lowest homicide rates, like Idaho and Utah, have the most guns.
    - acdha 1y ago
      You’re conflating two different things. The number of guns in absolute terms doesn’t matter as much as availability to people who are inclined to commit crimes: a collector / prepper going from 10 to 11 guns affects the total count but doesn’t impact the crime stats the way an angry teenager going from 0 to 1 gun does. This is why it’s misleading to talk about state-level stats without accounting for density: Idaho has a lower crime rate because it is mostly rural and has a single large city, which isn’t that big. Crime is a function of population, not land.
      - potato3732842 1y ago
        >This is why it’s misleading to talk about state-level stats without accounting for density: Idaho has a lower crime rate because it is mostly rural and has a single large city, which isn’t that big. Crime is a function of population, not land. Don't you mean function of density or was that a slight of hand rather than a typo? Like compare Wyoming to 1/16 of NYC or 16x Wyoming and compare it to all of NYC. They're about equal in population but the rates per capita are per capita so they're unchanged whether you multiply one or divide the other.
- Avshalom 1y ago
  Meh, that's not really any worse than Albuquerque and I haven't been murdered once here.
- scarface_74 1y ago
  The city I spent all of my childhood and went to college in had a murder rate in the 20s per 100,000 the year I graduated. It wasn’t a large city. Retirement is a long way away. But next year, we have an Airbnb in Escazu, a suburb of San Jose that is safe. It’s a high rise condo 2/2 with a gym and a pool. The murder rate in “Atlanta” is also still around 20 per 100,000 and I lived in various suburbs of metro Atlanta until 2022 and was never in fear of my life going into the city. But I also lived in a suburban enclaves there. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to be one of these ignorant entitled Americans who refuse to learn Spanish. I am close to A2 level Spanish now and should be there by the time we go next year. I can hold simple conversations.

bombcar 1y ago

When the police are already militarized, and can utilize military-grade vehicles and weapons on those who don’t have the right height of grass, does it really matter much anymore?

Tyrubias 1y ago
I’m not sure if I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying but I think it does matter. First of all, the police shouldn’t be militarized, so the fact that they already are doesn’t make it any better. Second of all, the military is fundamentally different from the police, who are at least nominally controlled by the city (yes, I know the President can and has taken control of the D.C. police). The people of D.C. shouldn’t be policed by a force that doesn’t answer to them, especially since the vast majority of them didn’t vote for the federal administration that’s currently seizing control of municipal law enforcement.
jacquesm 1y ago
Yes, it does matter. The chain of command is entirely different.
potato3732842 1y ago
>When the police are already militarized, and can utilize military-grade vehicles and weapons on those who don’t have the right height of grass, does it really matter much anymore? Why is grass height any of the government's business? Who voted for the people who did that? Who came up with the legal theories under which those laws exist? Why were these ever a justifiable pretense for the government to threaten people with force in the first place? We all know the argument. It's some mumbo jumbo about mice and pests and public health, about blight and property values, and government interest in those things. But now the people (demographically, if not literally the same individuals in some cases) who were the ones peddling it are the ones threatened by it and it's made immediately clear to them how bullshit their justification was. I feel like I'm the fucking goose chasing the guy in the down coat and I don't want to be.
- bombcar 1y ago
  It wasn't a law-based one, but it escalated from a HOA requirement. Anything eventually involves the military shooting nukes at you.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

arethuza 1y ago

Look at the UK experience in Northern Ireland - not something to be emulated.

penguin202 1y ago

[flagged]

Weryj 1y ago
[flagged]
- philipallstar 1y ago
  And Socialism step 1. And monarchy step 1. Category error.
  - Weryj 1y ago
    Again, not Socialism, sub-categories of it, sure. However Social Democracy is the goal and that's not its step 1.
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      Yeah, maybe certain types of fascism are great too. I wouldn't count on it for it or socialism, though.
      - ben_w 1y ago
        At various points, several western European nations have been "democratic socialist", with varying degrees of success. Not so much of those since the end of the Cold War, but they were generally on the liberal side when it came to personal freedom. For example, the UK — and sure, the UK had The Troubles and all the associated awfulness, and the Empire for some of that period, ditto — the police forces in England, Scotland, and Wales were not (and still are not) routinely armed.
        philipallstar 1y ago
        Well, yes, but the next problem to talk about is definitions. Democratic socialism is a name that's not really socialist. Socialism is state control of the economy. That's fundamentally different to creaming the top off a capitalist economy. Now if the UK enlarges the state to the point where the NHS owns everything and all resource allocation is directed by some bureaucrats, then, sure it's actual socialism. Until then it's capitalism with a giant all-powerful anchor attached called the state.