This government doesn’t provide for people’s needs and is still powerful enough to take everything from us.
The real problem is if it’s not powerful enough to maintain a top position on violence then I’ll end up paying a second set of taxes to the local sheriff and his posse of Ranchers.
We need to ensure power is used responsibly. Not just get rid of it and hope nobody comes along to fill the vacuum. (Spoiler Alert, they will, and there won’t be voting)
Not sure what you’re trying to say here. I’m against mass surveillance! I’m against big powerful government in general. All the fear people had with the Republicans coming to power would not have happened if there was no power for them to come to in the first place.
As for crime, that’s the job of a small, local, effective, community police force to deal with. Not a militarized thug squad that we have now!
Small local police can not deal with everything tho. There is a reason for multiple “layers”. The problem arise when anyone can be police, dealing with people’s lives without any meaningful training or selection, while other professions need years of training and certificates before they are allowed to do far less consequential things.
The problem with police is that they are “others.” If they were members of their communities and they knew the people they worked with (say, by walking a beat on foot and talking to people like a friendly mail carrier) then we wouldn’t have these issues.
But that would take far more cops to actually know people? Like in the order of one per 100? There are currently 700’000 cops, that would be 5x as many. How many people could one cop realistically know? What problem would this “knowing people” actually solve?
Presumably somewhere around Dunbar’s number (or some other number with a similar goal likely calculated in a better way), which is wildly unrealistic from a practical perspective.
What problem would this “knowing people” actually solve?
They likely believe that police that are “members of the community” are much less likely to react based on vague heuristics built up over time because they are more likely to directly know the people involved and thus be less likely to need to rely on a snap judgement of strangers. It’s right up there with “maybe we should train them better”, except training is several orders of magnitude more manageable from a practical standpoint than having more law enforcement per capita than Bible belt small towns have churches per capita.
I’m sure a social safety net propped up entirely by bureaucrats is going to suddenly deprive every one of their rights. It won’t be a government with mass surveillance and militarized police. Nope, those are definitely not two different things. Big government is big government regardless of form apparently.
I’m not against safety nets. I’m against bureaucracies and mass data collection. A social safety that features mass surveillance (means testing) is another tool for social control. A simple safety net via a negative income tax doesn’t leave any cookies in the jar for Musk and his goons to plunder.
Good fences make good neighbours. The government I trust most is the one with the least power to hurt me. When you vote for a new bureaucracy with broad powers over people’s lives you’re setting a time bomb that’s waiting to explode the moment the bad guy wins an election.
Never forget that it was the power of the bureaucracy that allowed the Nazis to be so ruthlessly efficient at rounding up all the Jews. The lesson of history was not “only the good guys should be allowed to win”, it’s “we shouldn’t be leaving so many loaded guns laying around the house.”
A government large enough to supply all your needs is a government powerful enough to take everything from you.
What’s the size of a government that supplies precisely zero of my needs yet is still powerfull enough to take everything?
The current one
This government doesn’t provide for people’s needs and is still powerful enough to take everything from us.
The real problem is if it’s not powerful enough to maintain a top position on violence then I’ll end up paying a second set of taxes to the local sheriff and his posse of Ranchers.
We need to ensure power is used responsibly. Not just get rid of it and hope nobody comes along to fill the vacuum. (Spoiler Alert, they will, and there won’t be voting)
So glad government mass surveillance has stopped all crime!
Not sure what you’re trying to say here. I’m against mass surveillance! I’m against big powerful government in general. All the fear people had with the Republicans coming to power would not have happened if there was no power for them to come to in the first place.
As for crime, that’s the job of a small, local, effective, community police force to deal with. Not a militarized thug squad that we have now!
Small local police can not deal with everything tho. There is a reason for multiple “layers”. The problem arise when anyone can be police, dealing with people’s lives without any meaningful training or selection, while other professions need years of training and certificates before they are allowed to do far less consequential things.
The problem with police is that they are “others.” If they were members of their communities and they knew the people they worked with (say, by walking a beat on foot and talking to people like a friendly mail carrier) then we wouldn’t have these issues.
But that would take far more cops to actually know people? Like in the order of one per 100? There are currently 700’000 cops, that would be 5x as many. How many people could one cop realistically know? What problem would this “knowing people” actually solve?
Presumably somewhere around Dunbar’s number (or some other number with a similar goal likely calculated in a better way), which is wildly unrealistic from a practical perspective.
They likely believe that police that are “members of the community” are much less likely to react based on vague heuristics built up over time because they are more likely to directly know the people involved and thus be less likely to need to rely on a snap judgement of strangers. It’s right up there with “maybe we should train them better”, except training is several orders of magnitude more manageable from a practical standpoint than having more law enforcement per capita than Bible belt small towns have churches per capita.
deleted by creator
Good job sounding profound while spewing absolute bullshit.
I’m sure a social safety net propped up entirely by bureaucrats is going to suddenly deprive every one of their rights. It won’t be a government with mass surveillance and militarized police. Nope, those are definitely not two different things. Big government is big government regardless of form apparently.
I’m not against safety nets. I’m against bureaucracies and mass data collection. A social safety that features mass surveillance (means testing) is another tool for social control. A simple safety net via a negative income tax doesn’t leave any cookies in the jar for Musk and his goons to plunder.
Good fences make good neighbours. The government I trust most is the one with the least power to hurt me. When you vote for a new bureaucracy with broad powers over people’s lives you’re setting a time bomb that’s waiting to explode the moment the bad guy wins an election.
Never forget that it was the power of the bureaucracy that allowed the Nazis to be so ruthlessly efficient at rounding up all the Jews. The lesson of history was not “only the good guys should be allowed to win”, it’s “we shouldn’t be leaving so many loaded guns laying around the house.”