What an idiot, part two!

[Trausti]

From what I read, Ms Nixon was not advocating forgoing enforcement of shoplifting laws. She made the rather common sense observation that prosecuting them does not solve the problem of desperation and need.

But they should still be arrested and prosecuted; otherwise the store is likely to close (see San Francisco) which can be very harmful to a community.

If you provide them with the things that they need, you don't have to arrest or prosecute them, because they don't have to commit crimes in order to survive.

The punishment model of crime prevention through deterrence simply doesn't work. It never has, and yet it's always been hugely popular.

Constantly doing something that doesn't work and expecting it to work this time is just fucking stupid.

But nevertheless, every time there's an uptick in crime, there are millions of idiots clamouring for harsher punishments.

Why should the retail stores be on the hook for that? I mean, it’s a frequent lefty lament that people in poor neighborhoods don’t have close access to goods and services. Yet these same lefties promote policies that increase theft and victimization - resulting in store closures. For example, California now has a law which effectively decriminalizes theft below $950. And, shockingly, Walgreens and CVS are closing stores in San Francisco due to a shoplifting epidemic. Residents are angry that that the stores are closing. But this is the obvious consequence of the policies they voted for!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And she doesn't get it anyway.

It's not people desperate to shoplift basic necessities, it's people shoplifting Tide because it sells well at flea markets. It's been a problem for quite a while.

 

[bilby]

If you provide them with the things that they need, you don't have to arrest or prosecute them, because they don't have to commit crimes in order to survive.

The punishment model of crime prevention through deterrence simply doesn't work. It never has, and yet it's always been hugely popular.

Constantly doing something that doesn't work and expecting it to work this time is just fucking stupid.

But nevertheless, every time there's an uptick in crime, there are millions of idiots clamouring for harsher punishments.

Why should the retail stores be on the hook for that?

They shouldn't be. I never said that they should.

But they will be if nothing is done to reduce the desperation of the poor; And harsher punishments and stricter enforcement won't achieve that.

At best, a retailer might increase security and push some of the problem onto other retailers. But that's just moving the problem around, and does nothing to resolve it.

I mean, it’s a frequent lefty lament that people in poor neighborhoods don’t have close access to goods and services. Yet these same lefties promote policies that increase theft and victimization - resulting in store closures. For example, California now has a law which effectively decriminalizes theft below $950. And, shockingly, Walgreens and CVS are closing stores in San Francisco due to a shoplifting epidemic. Residents are angry that that the stores are closing. But this is the obvious consequence of the policies they voted for!

It's an obvious consequence of their society and nation failing to provide their most basic needs. Which is the policy every American votes for. That's a consequence of your having a two party system with a choice between right wing and extreme right wing options.

The concept of just giving people the basics they require is completely unthinkable to you, isn't it? You are ideologically incapable of even considering it, and if asked to do so will immediately think of extreme totalitarian wealth redistribution schemes such as those imposed in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc; And you are so blinded by these examples that you can't see Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, etc.

Developed nations with deep pockets can easily prevent poverty from becoming a huge problem for their citizens. That poorly developed agrarian nations couldn't (or at least, couldn't via forcibly seizing land and putting non-farmers to work on it), is not a reason not to even consider baby steps in that direction. Giving people enough food that they don't have to steal it is not going to turn San Francisco into Pyongyang; nor is it going to result in American farmers having their land confiscated and turned over to a bunch of hippies from Portland.

 

[bilby]

The poor will always eat. There are many ways they might achieve this, some very efficient, and others much less so:

• An example of extreme inefficiency is a food riot. The warehouses get smashed and burned; Guards and bystanders get killed or injured; The poor people get to eat whatever doesn't get destroyed, and the cost is not just the cost of the stolen food, but also the cost of rebuilding and repairing the city.
  
• Less inefficient, but still horrible, is individual violent crime; Mugging people to get money for food, for example.
  
• Slightly less inefficient, but still pretty awful, is shoplifting and other non-violent crimes.
  
• Another option is to draft (or recruit, though if the alternative to enlisting is starvation, it's hardly voluntary) poor people into the armed forces. This is pretty inefficient, because soldiers don't contribute much to society; There's some defensive benefit, but beyond that point where the nation is protected against any credible outside threat, the marginal benefit to the nation of each additional recruit is likely negative. Essentially this is a back-door welfare system, in which only young and fit people are given government handouts; Their payments are concealed as wages, despite their 'work' adding nothing to productivity; And the system depends on their providing assistance to their ineligible family members.
  
• Most efficient of all is just to give people money. And likely the most efficient way to do that is a universal basic income, although means tested benefits might be better (or as good) in some circumstances.

For ideological reasons, the USA refuses to do enough of the latter. How much is 'enough'? I don't know - but it's above the level where theft of basics is commonplace, homelessness is ubiquitous, and ordinary citizens are in fear of their lives from criminals who are too desperate to be deterred even by harsh punishments. And if anyone is breaking the law just because they know that they will get food and shelter in jail, then clearly it's not 'enough'.

The only thing that has prevented the total collapse of US society is the massively inefficient military welfare system that goes some way to mitigating the absence of a proper welfare state. The problem with such an approach, apart from its obvious inequity and inefficiency, is that politicians with an army want to use it - so it leads to war (at best), or totalitarian oppression and war (at worst). The US has some protections against the latter, though the increasing militarisation of police forces, and the existence of the National Guard who can be lawfully deployed in domestic situations, undermines these protections.

Obviously the above isn't a complete list; And equally obviously, increased provision of the more efficient options isn't a complete protection against the less efficient. But the more of the stuff lower down my list you have, the less of the stuff higher up you will get.

Strict enforcement, and harsh punishments, have little effect on any of this, other than to move the problems around.

 

[Trausti]

If you incentive bad behavior, you get more bad behavior. Don’t complain if your neighborhood then goes to shit.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Trausti]

I think the successful capitalists have learned from history to keep these people satisfied just enough so that they don’t reach the nothing left to lose stage.

US social safety net provides for basic needs.

Shit, there goes another rib.

The US is unique in that the people in poverty are fat.

 

[bilby]

Shit, there goes another rib.

The US is unique in that the people in poverty are fat.

No, it isn't.

Poor people across the developed world are often overweight, while also being malnourished. Cheap high calorie food and drinks are rarely an adequate diet, but are often all that people can afford, both in terms of time and of money.

 

[bilby]

If you incentive bad behavior, you get more bad behavior. Don’t complain if your neighborhood then goes to shit.

Your unbelievably simplistic take on this is very very popular (hence the policies that have created the problem).

They're observably and demonstrably wrong though. Poverty isn't caused by people behaving 'badly'. Indeed, it is a foolish mistake to ascribe 'bad behaviour' as a cause (rather than a symptom) of anything done by an adult. It's a fine way to infantilise people who don't share your privileges though.

Perhaps you can solve poverty by sending poor people to their room with no supper.

 

[Derec]

Poor people across the developed world are often overweight, while also being malnourished. Cheap high calorie food and drinks are rarely an adequate diet, but are often all that people can afford, both in terms of time and of money.

That's BS. Fresh produce is not expensive, but it takes some effort to prepare. So it's more about laziness than inability to afford it.

 

[Derec]

[Your unbelievably simplistic take on this is very very popular (hence the policies that have created the problem).

It's not simplistic though. We see that in fauxgressive meccas like San Francisco.
San Francisco’s Shoplifting Surge

Soon after moving to San Francisco in 2016, I walked into a Walgreens in North Beach to buy an electric toothbrush.
As I was paying for it, a man walked into the store, grabbed a handful of beef jerky and walked out. I looked over at an employee, who shrugged. Then I went to Safeway next door for some groceries and I saw a man stuffing three bottles of wine into a backpack and walking casually toward the exit. On his way out he bagged some snacks. I asked the Safeway clerk about the thefts.
“I’m new to San Francisco,” I said. “Is it optional to pay for things here?”
Five years later, the shoplifting epidemic in San Francisco has only worsened.

They're observably and demonstrably wrong though. Poverty isn't caused by people behaving 'badly'.

Now who is being "unbelievably simplistic"? In some cases it is not, but in others it is. You can't categorically say that it isn't.

Indeed, it is a foolish mistake to ascribe 'bad behaviour' as a cause (rather than a symptom) of anything done by an adult.

Why would that be foolish? Do adults in your view lack any agency?

It's a fine way to infantilise people who don't share your privileges though.

On the contrary. Implying that they don't have agency or real choice to do or do otherwise is infantilizing them. To say they can't make a choice not to steal is infantilizing them.

Perhaps you can solve poverty by sending poor people to their room with no supper.

I think that's called "solitary" or SHU in adult land.

 

[bilby]

Poor people across the developed world are often overweight, while also being malnourished. Cheap high calorie food and drinks are rarely an adequate diet, but are often all that people can afford, both in terms of time and of money.

That's BS. Fresh produce is not expensive, but it takes some effort to prepare. So it's more about laziness than inability to afford it.

Being time poor isn't laziness. Quite the reverse.

 

[Trausti]

If you incentive bad behavior, you get more bad behavior. Don’t complain if your neighborhood then goes to shit.

Your unbelievably simplistic take on this is very very popular (hence the policies that have created the problem).

They're observably and demonstrably wrong though. Poverty isn't caused by people behaving 'badly'. Indeed, it is a foolish mistake to ascribe 'bad behaviour' as a cause (rather than a symptom) of anything done by an adult. It's a fine way to infantilise people who don't share your privileges though.

Perhaps you can solve poverty by sending poor people to their room with no supper.

Most poor people do not steal and commit no crimes. Criminals commit crime because they are criminals. It’s the scorpion and the frog. When you excuse bad behavior you increase victimization.

 

[Derec]

[*]Most efficient of all is just to give people money. And likely the most efficient way to do that is a universal basic income, although means tested benefits might be better (or as good) in some circumstances.

If you can get enough money for not just your needs (already covered by myriad social programs in the US) but also your wants (covered by stealing, in this case shoplifting but could also be burglary like in the "How he gonna get his money" thread) why work in the first place? We are seeing something similar now with enhanced unemployment and waived requirement to seek work. Many people would rather freeload than go back to work.
Out of all your options, why not say that they should get a fucking job instead of stealing?
Like the Offspring sang: I won't pay, I won't pay ya, no way | Na-na, why don't you get a job?

For ideological reasons, the USA refuses to do enough of the latter. How much is 'enough'? I don't know

Frankly, US does a lot already. Sometimes too much like the enhanced unemployment even now when the economy is pretty much completely reopened.
Most thefts and robberies are about wants - brand name trendy clothes, electronics etc. and not about legitimate needs.

- but it's above the level where theft of basics is commonplace, homelessness is ubiquitous, and ordinary citizens are in fear of their lives from criminals who are too desperate to be deterred even by harsh punishments. And if anyone is breaking the law just because they know that they will get food and shelter in jail, then clearly it's not 'enough'.

Again, most thefts are about wants, not needs. Most homelessness is related to mental illness, and not a matter purely of economics.

The only thing that has prevented the total collapse of US society is the massively inefficient military welfare system that goes some way to mitigating the absence of a proper welfare state. The problem with such an approach, apart from its obvious inequity and inefficiency, is that politicians with an army want to use it - so it leads to war (at best), or totalitarian oppression and war (at worst). The US has some protections against the latter, though the increasing militarisation of police forces, and the existence of the National Guard who can be lawfully deployed in domestic situations, undermines these protections.

I don't even know where to begin here. US police is not "militarized" in any real sense of the word. Note that anti-police activists call any sort of riot control equipment like Bearcats "militarization" even though the real military actually uses very different things like M60 machine guns, artillery, main battle tanks, attack aircraft and the like. But activists live for a sensationalizing moniker even if it doesn't make sense.

As to the National Guard, there are good reasons to use in in emergencies. It should have been deployed more readily both during #BLM riots in 2020 and the January 6th riot.

Strict enforcement, and harsh punishments, have little effect on any of this, other than to move the problems around.

You see that in locales like SF that are soft on crime you see an increase in those crimes. Not prosecuting shoplifters leads to more shoplifting. Duh!

 

[bilby]

If you incentive bad behavior, you get more bad behavior. Don’t complain if your neighborhood then goes to shit.

Your unbelievably simplistic take on this is very very popular (hence the policies that have created the problem).

They're observably and demonstrably wrong though. Poverty isn't caused by people behaving 'badly'. Indeed, it is a foolish mistake to ascribe 'bad behaviour' as a cause (rather than a symptom) of anything done by an adult. It's a fine way to infantilise people who don't share your privileges though.

Perhaps you can solve poverty by sending poor people to their room with no supper.

Most poor people do not steal and commit no crimes. Criminals commit crime because they are criminals. It’s the scorpion and the frog. When you excuse bad behavior you increase victimization.

Tautology isn't rational. Criminals are, by definition, criminals because they commit crime.

As you correctly observe, most people would rather not commit crime. That's true regardless of the punishments offered as deterrent.

People become criminals because society is structured so as to encourage crime. One major incentive to crime is the inability to get the basics of life by any other means. It's obviously not the only such incentive. But it's equally obvious that the cast majority of criminals aren't just 'bad people', born to commit evil; Psychopathy is rare, and few psychopaths are known for their shoplifting.

People become criminals for reasons. And if severe punishments were effective in reducing criminality, that would be obvious by now. What correlation there is between crime rates and severity of punishments indicates that it is not. The absence of correlation is evidence of the absence of causation.

 

[Trausti]

Poor people across the developed world are often overweight, while also being malnourished. Cheap high calorie food and drinks are rarely an adequate diet, but are often all that people can afford, both in terms of time and of money.

That's BS. Fresh produce is not expensive, but it takes some effort to prepare. So it's more about laziness than inability to afford it.

Eh, maybe it’s not lack of effort to buy fresh produce. Maybe stores that might have sold fresh produce have closed in a given neighborhood due to chronic store theft. Maybe no sensible business person would invest to sell these items in such a crime-prone neighborhood. Maybe, just maybe, those who excuse bad behavior fail to see the greater consequences of their bleeding-heart policies.

 

[Derec]

Being time poor isn't laziness. Quite the reverse.

What evidence do you have that ALL (or even most) poor are "time poor" and not just lazy?

 

[Trausti]

Most poor people do not steal and commit no crimes. Criminals commit crime because they are criminals. It’s the scorpion and the frog. When you excuse bad behavior you increase victimization.

Tautology isn't rational. Criminals are, by definition, criminals because they commit crime.

As you correctly observe, most people would rather not commit crime. That's true regardless of the punishments offered as deterrent.

People become criminals because society is structured so as to encourage crime. One major incentive to crime is the inability to get the basics of life by any other means. It's obviously not the only such incentive. But it's equally obvious that the cast majority of criminals aren't just 'bad people', born to commit evil; Psychopathy is rare, and few psychopaths are known for their shoplifting.

People become criminals for reasons. And if severe punishments were effective in reducing criminality, that would be obvious by now. What correlation there is between crime rates and severity of punishments indicates that it is not. The absence of correlation is evidence of the absence of causation.

Well, criminality is somewhat heritable. It’s a fashionable myth on the left that society makes people commit crime. But it’s not true.

 

[Derec]

People become criminals because society is structured so as to encourage crime.

Like fauxgressive cities not prosecuting many crimes. Or downgrading charges for for serious crimes like robbery and aggravated assault. That encourages crime. You are coming around I see.

One major incentive to crime is the inability to get the basics of life by any other means.

Bullshit. This is "how he gonna get his money" excuse for burglarizing people all over again.

It's obviously not the only such incentive. But it's equally obvious that the cast majority of criminals aren't just 'bad people', born to commit evil; Psychopathy is rare, and few psychopaths are known for their shoplifting.

Psychopathy is not that rare actually and "no chase policies" contribute to thieves feeling that they will never get caught no matter how brazen they get.

People become criminals for reasons.

Like wanting to take shortcuts, getting money and/or stuff without having to work for it.

And if severe punishments were effective in reducing criminality, that would be obvious by now. What correlation there is between crime rates and severity of punishments indicates that it is not. The absence of correlation is evidence of the absence of causation.

Soft on crime attitudes in places like San Francisco are obviously correlated to increase in crimes there. If the criminals don't fear getting caught, you get more criminals.

 

[Derec]

It's not people desperate to shoplift basic necessities, it's people shoplifting Tide because it sells well at flea markets. It's been a problem for quite a while.

The concept of reselling stolen goods is lost on some people. People like Miranda must think all thieves steal strictly for personal use.