The criminal justice system punishes those who can't adapt to capitalism

[Bomb#20]

So a lot of people commit muggings or enter the illicit drug industry because they cringe at the idea of exploiting others, do they?

No, but many of the victims of American style capitalism have very hard lives and end up doing this.

Whenever you have capitalism you have the exploiters and the exploited.

Whenever you have people you have the exploiters and the exploited. Your conviction that capitalism causes exploitation is folk-economics blessed as religious dogma. Exploitation was worse before capitalism evolved; and exploitation got worse everywhere that capitalism was abolished -- your romantic ahistorical image of the Spanish Anarchists notwithstanding. Exploitation is a normal part of human nature; capitalism has greatly though obviously very imperfectly alleviated it. The people in America who have very hard lives and end up mugging and dealing drugs are primarily victims of the War on Some Drugs, of the perverse incentives created by poorly designed government programs, and of bad parenting, none of which are capitalism's fault.

 

[thebeave]

I've been listening to a lot of hip-hop in the last year, and outside of the artistic aspect of it, it's actually taught me a good amount about the 'underground economy' and the economics of being poor. A few notable things I've realized from it:

- a lot of people commit muggings because they're poor and starving and have no other options
- a lot of people enter the illicit drug industry because they're poor and starving and have no other options

So we've built a society that systemically discriminates against both people of colour, and people with no education, to the point that there's a huge subset of society that needs to do anything they can to survive. So they turn to illegal activities, and when they get caught they're put in prison, worsening their life even further.

So in effect we've created a society based on pure competition, where we not only force the losers into poverty, but we put them in prison too.

That's fucked up.

Even if your premise was true, what alternative to capitalism would you suggest to alleviate the problem? And would this new system have problems of its own that would have to be dealt with?

There's a new Twitter hastag now called #resistcapitalism. Maybe you could tweet your theory.

 

[arkirk]

No.

Even if you have no source of money you don't need to commit muggings to get enough to live. Burglary is safer and produces enough. People commit muggings to get enough money to feed their drug addictions.

And most people enter the illicit drug industry at an age when they don't actually need money in the first place.

Rosseau's point is not what is the best way to cope with total rejection...no education, no chance of employment, and no attempt on the part of society to rectify the situation. It is not a question of whether the guy does armed robbery or sneak thievery. It is a matter of a system that places certain individuals on an inexorable path to incarceration or perhaps execution by some cop on the street. Drugs are just one of the parasitic industries that torment these poor devils on the outside of everything and yes, they mug and rob to get their temporary respites from withdrawal. So what. It was self medication against the pain of total rejection. And you with your ever so snide criticism of the poor devil's method of crime is out of place. Your "No" is just a way of expressing your lack of understanding and perhaps more important, your lack of concern. In a way, you are that criminal with a little bit of acceptance on the part of others in your life and are completely unaware of how lucky you are.

 

[Bomb#20]

On the same coin, our capitalist society has forced the exploitation, if not slavery of countless people in less developed nations.

Why do you believe that? Who in a less developed nation is exploited or enslaved because our capitalist society forced them to be? When people are exploited or enslaved in undeveloped nations it's because of the way those nations are ruled, and they aren't ruled by us.

It leads me to believe that we're only moral insofar as our in group is protected. Not a big surprise either, but would be nice if people had the capability to extend goodwill to groups and factions that have no affect on their bottom line.

People have that capability. In 2014 Americans gave $358 billion and 7.9 billion hours to charities.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No.

Even if you have no source of money you don't need to commit muggings to get enough to live. Burglary is safer and produces enough. People commit muggings to get enough money to feed their drug addictions.

And most people enter the illicit drug industry at an age when they don't actually need money in the first place.

Rosseau's point is not what is the best way to cope with total rejection...no education, no chance of employment, and no attempt on the part of society to rectify the situation. It is not a question of whether the guy does armed robbery or sneak thievery. It is a matter of a system that places certain individuals on an inexorable path to incarceration or perhaps execution by some cop on the street. Drugs are just one of the parasitic industries that torment these poor devils on the outside of everything and yes, they mug and rob to get their temporary respites from withdrawal. So what. It was self medication against the pain of total rejection. And you with your ever so snide criticism of the poor devil's method of crime is out of place. Your "No" is just a way of expressing your lack of understanding and perhaps more important, your lack of concern. In a way, you are that criminal with a little bit of acceptance on the part of others in your life and are completely unaware of how lucky you are.

I had a conversation with two of my students a couple of days ago. They were apparently very puzzled about the concept of orphanages and/or foster homes and what kids actually do at that point when they turn 18.

One of them said "Don't they, like, keep you living there for a couple of years, let you save up money while you get a job?" Her friend replied, "No, they give you an apartment and pay some of the rent for you until you get a job... or something... I mean, they kind of HAVE to, right? You can't really do anything without money."

I chimed in: "It's neither of those things. Most places, foster kids turn 18, they move out."

Girl#1: "How do you get an apartment with no money?"
Me: "You don't."
Girl#2: "How do you eat with no money?"
Me: "You don't."
Girl#1: "So... what? How does that even work?"
Me: "It's called 'poverty.' That's pretty much how it starts for most people."
Girl#2: "So what do you do, then? People don't just starve to death in the streets."
Me: "Yeah they do, that's called 'being homeless.' There are are two things you can do about it. You can either get on welfare until somebody gives you a job that pays enough to get an apartment and something to eat, or you can get into a college that gives you free room and board. And you can't usually get into college unless you have parents that can pay for it, which foster kids don't usually have."
Girl#1: "That's really depressing."
Me: * shrugs *

If you ever wonder why so many people in America have such an unshakeable lack of empathy or understanding of the existence of poor people, I suggest it may be as simple as many Americans having really no idea what poverty IS and no direct experience with it themselves.

 

[untermensche]

No, but many of the victims of American style capitalism have very hard lives and end up doing this.

Whenever you have capitalism you have the exploiters and the exploited.

Whenever you have people you have the exploiters and the exploited....

Nonsense.

You must never have heard of the Anarchists in Spain in the 1930's.

A functioning system that did away with these illegitimate hierarchies that exist is authoritarian systems like capitalism.

It is why every authoritarian system attacked them, the Nazi's the Italian fascists, The Stalinists and the US and Britain.

This was something very dangerous to these authoritarian "States".

And a message to humans forever.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No.

Even if you have no source of money you don't need to commit muggings to get enough to live. Burglary is safer and produces enough. People commit muggings to get enough money to feed their drug addictions.

And most people enter the illicit drug industry at an age when they don't actually need money in the first place.

Rosseau's point is not what is the best way to cope with total rejection...no education, no chance of employment, and no attempt on the part of society to rectify the situation. It is not a question of whether the guy does armed robbery or sneak thievery. It is a matter of a system that places certain individuals on an inexorable path to incarceration or perhaps execution by some cop on the street. Drugs are just one of the parasitic industries that torment these poor devils on the outside of everything and yes, they mug and rob to get their temporary respites from withdrawal. So what. It was self medication against the pain of total rejection. And you with your ever so snide criticism of the poor devil's method of crime is out of place. Your "No" is just a way of expressing your lack of understanding and perhaps more important, your lack of concern. In a way, you are that criminal with a little bit of acceptance on the part of others in your life and are completely unaware of how lucky you are.

And what you are missing is that you can't make the horse drink.

You're committing the standard leftist error of assuming the side with power is the side in the wrong.

In practice when you keep telling them that society is responsible for their plight you ensure they remain trapped in poverty.

 

[Axulus]

Since the vast majority of the poor in the US are not criminals and survive to old age, this is just pure BS that they "have to" be a criminal to survive.

 

[Axulus]

Whenever you have people you have the exploiters and the exploited....

Nonsense.

You must never have heard of the Anarchists in Spain in the 1930's.

A functioning system that did away with these illegitimate hierarchies that exist is authoritarian systems like capitalism.

It is why every authoritarian system attacked them, the Nazi's the Italian fascists, The Stalinists and the US and Britain.

This was something very dangerous to these authoritarian "States".

And a message to humans forever.

Your belief that Anarchist Spain was a functioning system is simply your own religious fairy tale you devoutly believe in. When I pressed you for hard data in the past on quality of life and economic production metrics you came up empty, not to mention that a few years is no where near enough time to assess the viability of a system, especially so when you start off by appropriating all the fruits of the previous system.

Finally, if your system can only continue to exist/function if no outside threats to it exist anywhere else in the world, then your system is pure fantasy as outside threats have existed to every society throughout human history. If it lacks the institutions to establish strong diplomatic ties and its own armed forces to defend itself, then it is clearly a flawed concept.

 

[untermensche]

Nonsense.

You must never have heard of the Anarchists in Spain in the 1930's.

A functioning system that did away with these illegitimate hierarchies that exist is authoritarian systems like capitalism.

It is why every authoritarian system attacked them, the Nazi's the Italian fascists, The Stalinists and the US and Britain.

This was something very dangerous to these authoritarian "States".

And a message to humans forever.

Your belief that Anarchist Spain was a functioning system is simply your own religious fairy tale you devoutly believe in. When I pressed you for hard data in the past on quality of life and economic production metrics you came up empty, not to mention that a few years is no where near enough time to assess the viability of a system, especially so when you start off by appropriating all the fruits of the previous system.

Finally, if your system can only continue to exist/function if no outside threats to it exist anywhere else in the world, then your system is pure fantasy as outside threats have existed to every society throughout human history. If it lacks the institutions to establish strong diplomatic ties and its own armed forces to defend itself, then it is clearly a flawed concept.

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."

Despite the critics clamoring for maximum efficiency, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy. (The CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes.)[29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

 

[Bomb#20]

Whenever you have people you have the exploiters and the exploited....

Nonsense.

You must never have heard of the Anarchists in Spain in the 1930's.

Whenever you have people you have the exploiters and the exploited. Your conviction that capitalism causes exploitation is folk-economics blessed as religious dogma. Exploitation was worse before capitalism evolved; and exploitation got worse everywhere that capitalism was abolished -- your romantic ahistorical image of the Spanish Anarchists notwithstanding. ...

A functioning system that did away with <snip>

I'm not seeing a lot of point in composing a counterargument, since you evidently won't read it.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yes, because no artist who comes from the streets could ever possibly have anything valid to say about the streets.

No, because most hip-hop that talks about drug dealing and crime is trying to selfishly profit off of glorifying and rationalizing these actions. The "artists" often have strong personal biases to excuse such actions, and almost never have the training to validly analyze the confounded causal complexity underlying crime.

My example of the kind self-serving lyrics that rich corporatists would write about why the 1% are the 1% makes it obvious that I wasn't saying anything that was particular to "coming from the streets", but go ahead with your tired strawmen that you try to sell like you have cornered the straw market.

- a lot of people commit muggings because they're poor and starving and have no other options
- a lot of people enter the illicit drug industry because they're poor and starving and have no other options

And if Trump wrote song lyrics, they would say that the 1% got there purely by working harder than everyone and never doing anything immoral.

Most muggers and drug dealers got into those acts before they put in any sincere effort to determining whether they could make a legal living.
The reality is that Hip-hop itself, and bands like NWA in particular, have likely led many a young man into a criminal life who might have chosen otherwise, if that "art" did not seek to rationalize and glorify criminality as "the only way" and even a righteous path.

Legal living doing what? And where?

Doing what any person in those areas is doing to avoid starvation other than crime. Or is it your contention that 100% of the residents in these areas are criminals?

I'm not claiming it isn't difficult and that the economics doesn't make crime a more appealing option for some people. I'm just denying that the criminals that hip-hop glorifies had completely zero options to avoid starvation other than crime ("no choice"), and violent crime like muggings in particular.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your belief that Anarchist Spain was a functioning system is simply your own religious fairy tale you devoutly believe in. When I pressed you for hard data in the past on quality of life and economic production metrics you came up empty, not to mention that a few years is no where near enough time to assess the viability of a system, especially so when you start off by appropriating all the fruits of the previous system.

Yup. The socialists always point to how good things go after they are living on stolen goods and then blame outside forces when the good times inevitably fail.

- - - Updated - - -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

Wikipedia is not a credible source on politically sensitive topics.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

No, because most hip-hop that talks about drug dealing and crime

Hold up! Are you saying there is hip hop that DOESN'T talk about drug dealing and crime? and even hip hop that talks about drug dealing and crime is not a monolith? Interesting. Do go on.

is trying to selfishly profit off of glorifying and rationalizing these actions.

And you have counted? If so, give us the numbers. Oh, and by the way, isn't "selfishly profiting" what capitalism does?

The "artists" often have strong personal biases to excuse such actions,

And you have no strong biases, I suppose? Exactly how much Hip hop music do you consume to make you such an expert? You must listen to hours of the stuff a day!

and almost never have the training to validly analyze the confounded causal complexity underlying crime.

But sometimes they do have the training to validly analyze the confounded causal complexity underlying crime. Could you provide some example of when they do? You obviously having studied hip hop now possess all the data and analysis necessary to back up what you say.

My example of the kind self-serving lyrics that rich corporatists would write about why the 1% are the 1% makes it obvious that I wasn't saying anything that was particular to "coming from the streets", but go ahead with your tired strawmen that you try to sell like you have cornered the straw market.

The quote I referenced when I said "coming from the streets"

Nothing valid about the causes of crime can follow from using Hip-hop lyrics as your empirical basis.

No mention of the 1%, just another all encompassing statement seething with loathing and draped in pretension. For you statement to be corect would mean that there is no empirical worth to collecting actual observations made by people living in crime zones nor use for interviews of those same people. Is that your claim?

- a lot of people commit muggings because they're poor and starving and have no other options
- a lot of people enter the illicit drug industry because they're poor and starving and have no other options

And if Trump wrote song lyrics, they would say that the 1% got there purely by working harder than everyone and never doing anything immoral.

Most muggers and drug dealers got into those acts before they put in any sincere effort to determining whether they could make a legal living.
The reality is that Hip-hop itself, and bands like NWA in particular, have likely led many a young man into a criminal life who might have chosen otherwise, if that "art" did not seek to rationalize and glorify criminality as "the only way" and even a righteous path.

Legal living doing what? And where?

Doing what any person in those areas is doing to avoid starvation other than crime.

Such as? What jobs are available when the businesses board up and move, and the unemployment rate stay in the double digits? Surely you can be specific, you being also an such an expert in urban decay and renewal.

Or is it your contention that 100% of the residents in these areas are criminals?

No. I have contended nothing. I have questioned you contentions though.

I'm not claiming it isn't difficult and that the economics doesn't make crime a more appealing option for some people. I'm just denying that the criminals that hip-hop glorifies had completely zero options to avoid starvation other than crime ("no choice"), and violent crime like muggings in particular.

Have I said they have no options? and if I haven't, why are you directing this particular vitriol at me?

 

[untermensche]

Wikipedia is not a credible source on politically sensitive topics.

Your worthless opinion is noted.

Those were direct quotes from people who witnessed the incredible society the Anarchists had constructed. Wikipedia was merely the agent of transmission.

 

[arkirk]

Nonsense.

You must never have heard of the Anarchists in Spain in the 1930's.

Whenever you have people you have the exploiters and the exploited. Your conviction that capitalism causes exploitation is folk-economics blessed as religious dogma. Exploitation was worse before capitalism evolved; and exploitation got worse everywhere that capitalism was abolished -- your romantic ahistorical image of the Spanish Anarchists notwithstanding. ...

A functioning system that did away with <snip>

I'm not seeing a lot of point in composing a counterargument, since you evidently won't read it.

So, Mr. Bomb, do you really think there are just plain bad people who are exploiters. Have you not noticed that Capitalism is the tool these exploiting bastards use. Have you not noticed that Capitalism adapts well to dictators, patriarchal forms of governance, including Kings and Queens...and they all are exploiters. You just seem to think we should just count the coins in our purses if we want to find out how good we are. I really don't understand your argument. It smacks of the Puritan "innate depravity" argument. I for one do not think the answer is to rub out all traces of a private economy, but I have to say we need to wipe out all traces of a private government...something you seem to be advocating and seem to believe governs best.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wikipedia is not a credible source on politically sensitive topics.

Your worthless opinion is noted.

Those were direct quotes from people who witnessed the incredible society the Anarchists had constructed. Wikipedia was merely the agent of transmission.

Wikipedia normally does not present false data. My problem with them is cherry-picking the facts to support the leftist position.

Furthermore, quotes from the time does not address the fundamental problem: Eat-the-rich produces a temporary boom but a long term collapse. Spain wasn't around long enough to be evidence that it could function without the collapse we always see.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, Mr. Bomb, do you really think there are just plain bad people who are exploiters. Have you not noticed that Capitalism is the tool these exploiting bastards use. Have you not noticed that Capitalism adapts well to dictators, patriarchal forms of governance, including Kings and Queens...and they all are exploiters. You just seem to think we should just count the coins in our purses if we want to find out how good we are. I really don't understand your argument. It smacks of the Puritan "innate depravity" argument. I for one do not think the answer is to rub out all traces of a private economy, but I have to say we need to wipe out all traces of a private government...something you seem to be advocating and seem to believe governs best.

I see more exploiters on the left than on the right. They justify it by pretending those who have stole it so it's proper to steal it from them.

 

[untermensche]

Your worthless opinion is noted.

Those were direct quotes from people who witnessed the incredible society the Anarchists had constructed. Wikipedia was merely the agent of transmission.

Wikipedia normally does not present false data. My problem with them is cherry-picking the facts to support the leftist position.

Furthermore, quotes from the time does not address the fundamental problem: Eat-the-rich produces a temporary boom but a long term collapse. Spain wasn't around long enough to be evidence that it could function without the collapse we always see.

Your characterization of the Anarchists as "eat-the-rich" is pure ignorance.

It was merely a refusal to be exploited by the rich as happens continually under capitalism.

 

[untermensche]

So, Mr. Bomb, do you really think there are just plain bad people who are exploiters. Have you not noticed that Capitalism is the tool these exploiting bastards use. Have you not noticed that Capitalism adapts well to dictators, patriarchal forms of governance, including Kings and Queens...and they all are exploiters. You just seem to think we should just count the coins in our purses if we want to find out how good we are. I really don't understand your argument. It smacks of the Puritan "innate depravity" argument. I for one do not think the answer is to rub out all traces of a private economy, but I have to say we need to wipe out all traces of a private government...something you seem to be advocating and seem to believe governs best.

I see more exploiters on the left than on the right. They justify it by pretending those who have stole it so it's proper to steal it from them.

The major theft in this world is the capitalist theft of the fruits of labor from workers.

And it is funny that trying to eliminate that theft is in itself called theft.

By the uninformed.