# Breakdown In Civil Order

#### Derec

##### Contributor
I'd much rather lose the twenty dollars in my pocket than my entire life savings, actually.
Caveat investor. If a scheme sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is. For most people sticking their money in low-cost index funds is the best option anyway. No fuss, no muss. If your house is broken into or you are held up by a gun-wielding mugger, you did nothing to invite that situation, but if you fall victim to a ponzi scheme or some other con (like investing in swamp land in Florida), you bear a part of responsibility for falling for it. You signed on the line which was dotted without doing your homework.

But the biggest difference is the threat and actuality of violence when it comes to street crime.

Being mugged is very distressing, it is true, but so is losing your home.
Try losing your life, which can happen during robberies.

What do you think prison is?
Are you seriously comparing prison with prideandfall's schnapps idea of giving thieves and robbers a free house and a $45k a year stipend so they don't rob and steal? Last edited: #### Derec ##### Contributor ok so let's take that as read for the sake of discussion. how is that a refutation of the fact that providing these people with a moderate amount of resources so that they don't feel compelled to commit crime is a more effective way to reduce crime than a militarized police force which punishes them for having done crime? It is probably true that if you just give these thugs enough money that they can live their lifestyle without the risk of stealing and robbing that many of them would decide that stealing and robbing for even more money is not worth it. That does not make it a good policy to pay thieves and robbers to stop stealing and robbing. It's basically government paying a form of protection money to these thugs. firstly, food stamps and section 8 and "etc" generally result in having the economic resource to exist barely above the poverty line, IE those things are baaaaaarely a scratch above living in an alley and eating out of a dumpster. First, these programs are supposed to be supplemental. Second, they are part of the social safety net. It's not a social hammock. It's not meant to provide a comfortable middle class life for doing nothing. secondly, there is a certain percentage of the human population which is just... fucked up. this is true of the rich, the poor, every strand of humanity in every direction. that sometimes those fucked up people are poor is no more the fault of 'the poor' than harvey weinstein is the fault of 'the rich'. though of course environmental factors can make such inclinations far worse. Causality can go the other way too. Many are and stay poor because they are what you call "fucked up". But should those people be rewarded for being fucked up, even when they manifest their fuckupedness as criminal behavior such as robbery. There was a case of some preteen boys robbing a woman on Atlanta's Belt Line. 11-year-old, 12-year-old arrested, accused of armed robbery on Beltline What should be done with them? A pat on the back and a generous stipend so they are not tempted to do it again? Hell no! thirdly, for the most part the answer to your question is yes. if you took every burglar and repeat-offender petty criminal and just gave them a house or a decent apartment and 45k a year, petty crime would plummet. That would amount to rewarding people for being thieves and robbers. Why should anybody work for a living when they can just burgle a house once and get a free house plus a life stipend of$45k?

you probably wouldn't see an immediate change in social and cultural behavior from that segment of the population, because unfortunately humans tend to be highly susceptible to behavior and attitudes learned up to their early teens and it's extremely difficult for them to unlearn those, but within a generation or two you'd see a radical change in that portion of society.
Even if you did, you'd have done it by basically paying protection money. Here's a free house plus $45k a year for life so you don't rob people. It's a really dumb idea. And what happens to their kids? Do they get a$45k stipend automatically (for being part of the subsidized criminal class by descent) when they turn 18 or do they have to commit a crime or two first?

an easier time of what?
Committing crimes and getting away with them.
"defund the police" as a political movement wants to take away military gear from cops, and to shift public spending away from the current paradigm of "assault, subdue, punish" and put money into "assist, rehabilitate, provide"
.
First of all, "military gear" is a misnomer. Police departments do not have main battle tanks, F/A18s or F21s, or artillery. What they have is crowd control gear, something very necessary in light of widespread rioting and unrest. Of course extremists want police to get rid of those tools, as it would mean they will have an easier time when they decide they want to riot, burn and loot again in one or several US cities.
And no, "defund" is not just restricted to gear. They want to drastically cut police budgets and staffing. In some cases, they want outright police and prison abolition.
People like AOC and Cori Bush are dangerous anti-police extremists.

how does that change how easy it is to commit crime?
Fewer cops on the beat, and thugs have an easier time thugging.

#### Politesse

Are you seriously comparing prison with prideandfall's schnapps idea of giving thieves and robbers a free house and a $45k a year stipend so they don't rob and steal? Well no, but it would be cheaper. #### Derec ##### Contributor Well no, but it would be cheaper. No, it would not be. Average cost per prisoner is less than$35k per year. And that is only for the duration of the custodial sentence, while prideandfall's plan would pay the $45k stipend for life. And don't forget the free house! Besides, even if raw annual costs were higher, a lot more people would want in on the prideandfall deal. People don't really want to lose freedom in prison for room and board, because prison sucks. But$45k stipend for life and a house with no restrictions on your freedom? Yeah, a lot of people would sign up for that instead of working for a living! I mean, people who actually work would feel majorly shafted if burglars were given a $45k stipend and a house for doing nothing. Plus, people do work in prisons. That partially offsets the costs of housing them and guarding them. And the cost per prisoner is much higher for maximum security prisons than county jails or minimum security prisons. And the people are in max security because they are dangerous - you don't want murderers and the like just running around and be paid a stipend! #### ZiprHead ##### Loony Running The Asylum Staff member One out of thousands does not constitute a trend. There are many white collar criminals in prison. Bernie Madoff "with your money" was just the best well known one. And you had to go back more than a decade to find him. #### TomC ##### Celestial Highness Caveat investor. If a scheme sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is. A big part of what made Madoff so successful was a lack of that. Nothing flashy, just modest, steady, seemingly secure growth. Madoff's big problem, though, was that he ripped off wealthy powerful people. Had it been some poor schmucks he could have just declared bankruptcy and moved on. Tom #### T.G.G. Moogly ##### Traditional Atheist Caveat investor. If a scheme sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is. A big part of what made Madoff so successful was a lack of that. Nothing flashy, just modest, steady, seemingly secure growth. Madoff's big problem, though, was that he ripped off wealthy powerful people. Had it been some poor schmucks he could have just declared bankruptcy and moved on. Tom "Modest secure growth" despite the fact that everything and everyone else in the market was experiencing just the opposite. That's what got him, he didn't swing with the ups and downs like other investors. And he would have been nabbed a lot sooner if the SEC wasn't a buddy buddy club. #### lpetrich ##### Contributor Two lefties come upon a person who has just been robbed and beaten unconscious on the sidewalk. One lefty turns to the other and says: “We need to find who did this, and help them.” Two right-wingers came upon a person who has just been robbed and beaten unconscious on the sidewalk. One right-winger turns to the other and says "Don't do anything for them. They must be taught a lesson in personal responsibility. Helping people does nothing but enable laziness. It protects people from the consequences of their actions. So let them learn an important life lesson." #### lpetrich ##### Contributor Of course the issue here is that "assist, rehabilitate and provide" is very very expensive. Far more expensive than "assess, put down threats, arrest". And there are very few communities that can afford$150 an hour psychologist cops in their community.
Evidence for that alleged great expense: {}

What is CAHOOTS? | White Bird Clinic
A November 2016 study published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine estimated that 20% to 50% of fatal encounters with law enforcement involved an individual with a mental illness. The CAHOOTS model demonstrates that these fatal encounters are not inevitable. Last year, out of a total of roughly 24,000 CAHOOTS calls, police backup was requested only 150 times.

The cost savings are considerable. The CAHOOTS program budget is about $2.1 million annually, while the combined annual budgets for the Eugene and Springfield police departments are$90 million. In 2017, the CAHOOTS teams answered 17% of the Eugene Police Department’s overall call volume. The program saves the city of Eugene an estimated \$8.5 million in public safety spending annually.
Yes, that site claims that that alternative to policing *saves* money. It may seem like gross heresy to many right-wingers and some centrists, but I'm not surprised.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Two lefties come upon a person who has just been robbed and beaten unconscious on the sidewalk. One lefty turns to the other and says: “We need to find who did this, and help them.”
Two right-wingers came upon a person who has just been robbed and beaten unconscious on the sidewalk. One right-winger turns to the other and says "Don't do anything for them. They must be taught a lesson in personal responsibility. Helping people does nothing but enable laziness. It protects people from the consequences of their actions. So let them learn an important life lesson."

Wow. So to get this straight, I as a "lefty" am being broad brushed into not helping an injured person waylaid on the sidewalk? The last time I saw someone seemingly unresponsive on the ground, I was about to call an ambulance. Thankfully, they got up and started walking around before I had to do anything. But I can't imagine any of my friends doing differently, most of which are "left". Of course, if the person was well known and publicly outspoken on views that mirror the one that lpetrich paints upon conservatives perhaps uncharitably, I would probably let their prior statements drown out their current pleas for help if they were capable of even making any.