11 ms·

Not happening without a lot more public attention and scrutiny. Public sector unions are core elements of the Democratic Party coalition, and no Democrat can w

Not happening without a lot more public attention and scrutiny. Public sector unions are core elements of the Democratic Party coalition, and no Democrat can win a primary without their support. Republicans don't depend on them, but find they're more trouble than they're worth. And questioning their powers and motives are all on the list of badthinks that must not be spoken.

kristopolous 11y ago
The thresholds are lower than you think. In "Why Civil Resistance Works" Erica Chenoweth calls it the 3.5% rule - basically that there's a really low threshold for change. Here's a WaPo article summarizing it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/11/05/peaceful-protest-is-much-more-effective-than-violence-in-toppling-dictators/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/11/05... . She has a book on it with a much more thorough study from Columbia press here: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820 http://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780... In "The Rebel's Dilemma", Mark Lichbach outlined how if 5% or more have sustained civil disobedience, it has always led to successful downfall and complete regime change of government - not that we need that here. In more modest proposals, you have things like the Human Rights Campaign (the largest gay-advocacy group) boasting a 1.5 million membership - about 0.4% of the country. They are making dramatic gains for being such a small percent. In the 1960s, the most powerful civil rights group in the south, the SCLC, had around 250,000 members which was equally, about 0.5%.
- mc32 11y ago
  What about 'privatizing' a police force, with the correct incentives (not perverse incentives, as we see in the correctional sector)? I can see the bad aspects of this, as well the good ones. One of the main issues, in poor neighborhoods is the government of these places invest very little in them and typically the only governmental presence is the police, which is the last line of governmental assertion (via show of force), and provide little else to get the community going strong. That is to say, there is little put into resources for 'community building', yes, some people in those communities are less cooperative than people of more affluent communities --by cooperative I mean working together to improve and build on their vision. In these cases, one can hardly fault the police for complaining that they feel the brunt of the frustration of a population while politicians politick and like Janus, speak from two mouths and their only policy to address issues is to send in the police to stabilize a place instead of engaging the community and establishing enhancement programs.
  - jdreaver 11y ago
    If anyone reading this is genuinely interested in a perspective on how many core government functions (law, police, defense, roads, etc) could work in a society without government, check out The Machinery of Freedom [1] by David Friedman. Even if you don't agree with removing government 100%, it gives you a new way of thinking about these services. There are a lot of fascinating examples of societies in history where many of these systems were not primarily controlled by the state. It is also a great mind-bending thought game to try and figure out how you would structure, say, a defense organization or a road company if the government disappeared tomorrow. I had a lot of fun reading this book, and I think it provides a lot of useful ideas for thinking about how government should function. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/1507785607/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1430618682&sr=8-1&keywords=machinery+of+freedom http://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capita...
  - afarrell 11y ago
    Without violating the 1st amendment, how would you prevent the company you've subcontracted to from lobbying legislators for perverse incentives?
    - mc32 11y ago
      Can't you just establish the parameters in the legal contract between the jurisdiction and the service company? Just like it's my constitutional right to express myself as I please, my employer could decide to fire me for voicing something either they disagree with or something their customers disagree with and reflects badly upon them.
      - afarrell 11y ago
        But your employer cannot contribute to your political campaign.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Local police are locally funded which creates huge issues even for private companies. IMO, removing all local police funding would 'solve' most of these issues much more directly. PS: Ditto schools. Also, this is about funding nothing says control can't remain at the local level, but traffic ticket revenue for example should not end up in a small towns budget.
- chernevik 11y ago
  Interesting. But mobilizing any percentage of the electorate requires awareness. There is a reason the Democrats and the Left spend so much time talking about "inequality" -- the last thing they want is for black people to focus on the fact that the institutions closest to them, and most important to their daily lives, are controlled by Democrats. Baltimore and Maryland, after all, have been governed by Democrats for decades.

kristopolous 11y ago

The thresholds are lower than you think. In "Why Civil Resistance Works" Erica Chenoweth calls it the 3.5% rule - basically that there's a really low threshold for change. Here's a WaPo article summarizing it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/11/05/peaceful-protest-is-much-more-effective-than-violence-in-toppling-dictators/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/11/05... . She has a book on it with a much more thorough study from Columbia press here: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820 http://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780... In "The Rebel's Dilemma", Mark Lichbach outlined how if 5% or more have sustained civil disobedience, it has always led to successful downfall and complete regime change of government - not that we need that here. In more modest proposals, you have things like the Human Rights Campaign (the largest gay-advocacy group) boasting a 1.5 million membership - about 0.4% of the country. They are making dramatic gains for being such a small percent. In the 1960s, the most powerful civil rights group in the south, the SCLC, had around 250,000 members which was equally, about 0.5%.

mc32 11y ago
What about 'privatizing' a police force, with the correct incentives (not perverse incentives, as we see in the correctional sector)? I can see the bad aspects of this, as well the good ones. One of the main issues, in poor neighborhoods is the government of these places invest very little in them and typically the only governmental presence is the police, which is the last line of governmental assertion (via show of force), and provide little else to get the community going strong. That is to say, there is little put into resources for 'community building', yes, some people in those communities are less cooperative than people of more affluent communities --by cooperative I mean working together to improve and build on their vision. In these cases, one can hardly fault the police for complaining that they feel the brunt of the frustration of a population while politicians politick and like Janus, speak from two mouths and their only policy to address issues is to send in the police to stabilize a place instead of engaging the community and establishing enhancement programs.
- jdreaver 11y ago
  If anyone reading this is genuinely interested in a perspective on how many core government functions (law, police, defense, roads, etc) could work in a society without government, check out The Machinery of Freedom [1] by David Friedman. Even if you don't agree with removing government 100%, it gives you a new way of thinking about these services. There are a lot of fascinating examples of societies in history where many of these systems were not primarily controlled by the state. It is also a great mind-bending thought game to try and figure out how you would structure, say, a defense organization or a road company if the government disappeared tomorrow. I had a lot of fun reading this book, and I think it provides a lot of useful ideas for thinking about how government should function. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/1507785607/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1430618682&sr=8-1&keywords=machinery+of+freedom http://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capita...
- afarrell 11y ago
  Without violating the 1st amendment, how would you prevent the company you've subcontracted to from lobbying legislators for perverse incentives?
  - mc32 11y ago
    Can't you just establish the parameters in the legal contract between the jurisdiction and the service company? Just like it's my constitutional right to express myself as I please, my employer could decide to fire me for voicing something either they disagree with or something their customers disagree with and reflects badly upon them.
    - afarrell 11y ago
      But your employer cannot contribute to your political campaign.
- Retric 11y ago
  Local police are locally funded which creates huge issues even for private companies. IMO, removing all local police funding would 'solve' most of these issues much more directly. PS: Ditto schools. Also, this is about funding nothing says control can't remain at the local level, but traffic ticket revenue for example should not end up in a small towns budget.
chernevik 11y ago
Interesting. But mobilizing any percentage of the electorate requires awareness. There is a reason the Democrats and the Left spend so much time talking about "inequality" -- the last thing they want is for black people to focus on the fact that the institutions closest to them, and most important to their daily lives, are controlled by Democrats. Baltimore and Maryland, after all, have been governed by Democrats for decades.