>"If people are crowdfunding law enforcement, if people are allowed to spend money on security to effectively make being a poor homeless dude wandering around on their street a crime, we've failed as a civilization. We've given up any aspiration that hey, justice is something that matters, morals are something that matters: if I can pay for it, I can inflict my will on others to increase my own convenience."
If people are voting for the leaders of the law enforcement, if people are allowed to vote for security to effectively make being a poor homeless dude wandering around on their street a crime, we've failed as a civilization. We've given up any aspiration that hey, justice is something that matters, morals are something that matters: if I can vote for it, I can inflict my will on others to increase my own convenience.
Lest you think that is a silly thing to say, THAT IS HAPPENING NOW. The City of Berkeley gets a DHS-sponsored Armored Personell Carrier. Cops in New York stop and fisk people of color. In no less than 10 cities in america, it is illegal to feed the homeless (I've broken this law in my own city, many times). What makes the group of people known as the "wealthy" any more or less suspicious or despicable than the group of people known as the "popular"?
> What makes the group of people known as the "wealthy" any more or less suspicious or despicable than the group of people known as the "popular"?
The group of people known as the "popular" is much larger and generally more diverse, and therefore it takes a bit more power of persuasion (or widespread bigotry) to convince them that harassing a particular social group is a good use of their tax dollars. If the "popular" backs that harassment, society has bigger problems than the legal mechanisms that permit them to do so.
A situation where people wanting "security" to target a minority or behaviour they dislike need electoral and legislative support may not be perfect, but it's still preferable to a situation where they simply need sufficient funds.
> The group of people known as the "popular" is much larger and generally more diverse.
Yeah, no, that's really not true, by "popular", I'm functionally referring to people "popular enough to get elected". This specific subset may also be restricted to the intersection of the common definition of "popular" and "narcissistic enough to try".
We may choose to really examine those individuals who have a day-to-day operational control over the work of the state. Here there are also complicating factors like bureaucrats and mid- and high- level managers in the state apparatus not only are unelected (so that to properly describe this group we should re-qualify popular as "favorable to the elected") but these people also tend to be less accountable - "qualified immunity", not often do you hear of government officials going to jail - though I suppose that's true of wall street, too...
Just a question, how do are laws that make feeding the homeless illegal enforceable? Do they require people to provide proof of residency somewhere prior to purchasing food for others?
If people are voting for the leaders of the law enforcement, if people are allowed to vote for security to effectively make being a poor homeless dude wandering around on their street a crime, we've failed as a civilization. We've given up any aspiration that hey, justice is something that matters, morals are something that matters: if I can vote for it, I can inflict my will on others to increase my own convenience.
Lest you think that is a silly thing to say, THAT IS HAPPENING NOW. The City of Berkeley gets a DHS-sponsored Armored Personell Carrier. Cops in New York stop and fisk people of color. In no less than 10 cities in america, it is illegal to feed the homeless (I've broken this law in my own city, many times). What makes the group of people known as the "wealthy" any more or less suspicious or despicable than the group of people known as the "popular"?