Despite critiques of state power, it is not the sole source of tyranny. Rightly directed, the state can reduce tyranny by defending the powerless and ensuring peace, prosperity, and tranquility.
All good points. For the people at the bottom of American society, the road to hell was absolutely paved with good intentions. The welfare programs of the 60s destroyed the family unit for the people who needed it most. Decriminalization of hard drugs mostly worsened the problems it purported to solve. The “defund the police” movement led to a massive surge in homicide deaths among the black population. Legalizing shoplifting just ended up depriving many neighborhoods of their local grocery stores, who could not be expected to subsidize theft. In every case, policies meant to help the downtrodden and exploited mostly just enabled the small minority of predators among them.
You make a good point that fixing law enforcement is only half the problem. Everyone needs the ability to contribute to society through meaningful work. Economic protectionism and restrictions on immigration would go a long way towards restoring the middle class dream for the poorest quarter of society. But because these policies would slightly hurt the wealthiest quarter, they are vigorously opposed by the so-called progressives who belong to that class. They would prefer to spend money on counterproductive welfare programs that primarily enrich their friends who work for government agencies and NGOs.
There was no massive surge in homicides within the black population due to serious reallocations of funding from the police to social service programs en masse throughout the country. Because there was no such program, even in jurisdictions that did attempt reallocation, What actually happened was they made very marginal cuts and then didn’t develop or implement the programs they said they would and were demanded for by the same movements calling for the defunding. Furthermore that surge you’re very likely referring to? Predates the popularity and implementation of most if not all the defunding programs.
I think this post might confuse some people who expect the focus to be on how bad it is that disproportional justice exists-"and that's why we should penalize insurance companies more who in fact do alot more net harm than one murderer".
But pointing out the hypocrisy of healthcare is just as valid as the hypocrisy in the policing of crime, and I think both hypocrisies should be addressed.
They're two different examples of asymmetrical justice but both valid. Interestingly, both the right and the left conveniently ignore one or the other.
The solution to one is actually quite easy, and you said it yourself: emulate Asian countries (or El Salvador). Tough on crime actually reduces crime who would've thought.
The solution to the other is not nearly as easy, and downright impossible if policies like open borders immigration continue.
I will say I actually don't really believe in "equal justice". I think a doctor should get care instead of a homeless person if you really need to choose one or the other. Equal moral worth does NOT exist--the state would trade a civilian for the president in a heartbeat and that's entirely valid. I think people don't really think about justice coherently and why it exists and for what purpose. That doesn't make murder ok, of a homeless person or of a CEO. But to pretend one *should* be just as important as another is a bit naive I think.
Maybe in Utopia everyone has equal worth. But in a reality where people value resources, people who possess or contribute more resources get more worth. Makes sense to me.
I had to pare this essay back with my dad like 7 times. The first couple of drafts were basically me ranting about how insane it is to privilege the life of a murder over that of a murder victim.
In a world of constrained resources where equal justice is never more than an ideal. Our morality primarily results in protecting evil people not the powerless which is the opposite of what morality should be - imo.
Good essay Peter! While agreeing entirely with the problem of asymmetric justice you describe, I’d be curious that you explored (perhaps in a follow up essay!) what are the high level solutions you favor. I suspect the challenge lays therein!
I would mimic Asian countries which in the 20th century banished crime from their societies. More enforcement, more cameras, more work in manufacturing.
If you sit on an inner city jury you will quickly realize the reason we have crime is because the victims communities have decided they prefer a tradeoff with more crime and less enforcement over one with less crime and more enforcement.
They would deny this in the abstract, but it’s the practical reality when you start looking at specific situations.
I think a part of that, as someone who lived in the south side for two years, is that "bad" crimes aren't punished but petty crimes often are. I get that this is because police want to enforce "something" and they are struggling to catch people like murders or gangbangers. But is leads to low levels of trust in policing because they don't seem focused on actually reducing suffering, but instead on just randomly punishing people who are doing stuff like smoking weed.
1) Broken windows policing works. There are basically zero examples of "don't punish small crimes but somehow have control over big crimes."
Either your enforcing the law or your not.
2) Drug crimes basically don't get enforced at all if people behave. But if they cause a public disturbance or otherwise are committing crimes drugs are a good way to convict them. There really aren't many non-violent drug offenders in prison.
3) In El Salvador Bukele ended crime by saying "just lock up everyone with a visible gang tattoo forever". The public put up with that, I'm sure a few innocents got swept up, and it basically ended serious crime overnight.
4) I don't think I can emphasize how...animalistic...inner city populations are. Like if you haven't lived in a city like Baltimore and not in a gated community, you just can't get it.
5) My answer to crime is we should go full Singapore. But we'd probably have to remove to voting franchise from black people to make it work.
33% of adult black males have a felony conviction, so nearly the entire black community is only one step removed from a felon. They vaguely want to "criminals" locked up, but not their nephew Jamal whose "just a nice kid that made some mistakes." So they ping pong between hating cops and loving them based on crime rates that go up and down but always ping pong around an average baseline no middle class white person would ever put up with.
All good points. For the people at the bottom of American society, the road to hell was absolutely paved with good intentions. The welfare programs of the 60s destroyed the family unit for the people who needed it most. Decriminalization of hard drugs mostly worsened the problems it purported to solve. The “defund the police” movement led to a massive surge in homicide deaths among the black population. Legalizing shoplifting just ended up depriving many neighborhoods of their local grocery stores, who could not be expected to subsidize theft. In every case, policies meant to help the downtrodden and exploited mostly just enabled the small minority of predators among them.
You make a good point that fixing law enforcement is only half the problem. Everyone needs the ability to contribute to society through meaningful work. Economic protectionism and restrictions on immigration would go a long way towards restoring the middle class dream for the poorest quarter of society. But because these policies would slightly hurt the wealthiest quarter, they are vigorously opposed by the so-called progressives who belong to that class. They would prefer to spend money on counterproductive welfare programs that primarily enrich their friends who work for government agencies and NGOs.
I basically agree with everything. Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts!!
You’re both very wrong.
There was no massive surge in homicides within the black population due to serious reallocations of funding from the police to social service programs en masse throughout the country. Because there was no such program, even in jurisdictions that did attempt reallocation, What actually happened was they made very marginal cuts and then didn’t develop or implement the programs they said they would and were demanded for by the same movements calling for the defunding. Furthermore that surge you’re very likely referring to? Predates the popularity and implementation of most if not all the defunding programs.
Try again, bootlicker.
I think this post might confuse some people who expect the focus to be on how bad it is that disproportional justice exists-"and that's why we should penalize insurance companies more who in fact do alot more net harm than one murderer".
But pointing out the hypocrisy of healthcare is just as valid as the hypocrisy in the policing of crime, and I think both hypocrisies should be addressed.
They're two different examples of asymmetrical justice but both valid. Interestingly, both the right and the left conveniently ignore one or the other.
The solution to one is actually quite easy, and you said it yourself: emulate Asian countries (or El Salvador). Tough on crime actually reduces crime who would've thought.
The solution to the other is not nearly as easy, and downright impossible if policies like open borders immigration continue.
I will say I actually don't really believe in "equal justice". I think a doctor should get care instead of a homeless person if you really need to choose one or the other. Equal moral worth does NOT exist--the state would trade a civilian for the president in a heartbeat and that's entirely valid. I think people don't really think about justice coherently and why it exists and for what purpose. That doesn't make murder ok, of a homeless person or of a CEO. But to pretend one *should* be just as important as another is a bit naive I think.
Maybe in Utopia everyone has equal worth. But in a reality where people value resources, people who possess or contribute more resources get more worth. Makes sense to me.
I had to pare this essay back with my dad like 7 times. The first couple of drafts were basically me ranting about how insane it is to privilege the life of a murder over that of a murder victim.
In a world of constrained resources where equal justice is never more than an ideal. Our morality primarily results in protecting evil people not the powerless which is the opposite of what morality should be - imo.
Good essay Peter! While agreeing entirely with the problem of asymmetric justice you describe, I’d be curious that you explored (perhaps in a follow up essay!) what are the high level solutions you favor. I suspect the challenge lays therein!
I would mimic Asian countries which in the 20th century banished crime from their societies. More enforcement, more cameras, more work in manufacturing.
Hell, even more work in lamp-lighting would be good
To quote Carlyle: “Work, for you? Work, surely, is not quite undiscoverable in an Earth so wide as ours, if we will take the right methods for it!”
Those notoriously didn’t work, and in fact made crime much more pervasive and in many cases violent.
If you sit on an inner city jury you will quickly realize the reason we have crime is because the victims communities have decided they prefer a tradeoff with more crime and less enforcement over one with less crime and more enforcement.
They would deny this in the abstract, but it’s the practical reality when you start looking at specific situations.
I think a part of that, as someone who lived in the south side for two years, is that "bad" crimes aren't punished but petty crimes often are. I get that this is because police want to enforce "something" and they are struggling to catch people like murders or gangbangers. But is leads to low levels of trust in policing because they don't seem focused on actually reducing suffering, but instead on just randomly punishing people who are doing stuff like smoking weed.
1) Broken windows policing works. There are basically zero examples of "don't punish small crimes but somehow have control over big crimes."
Either your enforcing the law or your not.
2) Drug crimes basically don't get enforced at all if people behave. But if they cause a public disturbance or otherwise are committing crimes drugs are a good way to convict them. There really aren't many non-violent drug offenders in prison.
3) In El Salvador Bukele ended crime by saying "just lock up everyone with a visible gang tattoo forever". The public put up with that, I'm sure a few innocents got swept up, and it basically ended serious crime overnight.
4) I don't think I can emphasize how...animalistic...inner city populations are. Like if you haven't lived in a city like Baltimore and not in a gated community, you just can't get it.
5) My answer to crime is we should go full Singapore. But we'd probably have to remove to voting franchise from black people to make it work.
33% of adult black males have a felony conviction, so nearly the entire black community is only one step removed from a felon. They vaguely want to "criminals" locked up, but not their nephew Jamal whose "just a nice kid that made some mistakes." So they ping pong between hating cops and loving them based on crime rates that go up and down but always ping pong around an average baseline no middle class white person would ever put up with.
Well said.
Thank you for reading it! Glad you enjoyed it :)
You in fact are just a shill for the far right. Word.