We can desire a better world than these two opposite poles.
I don't disagree, but if you ask me which of these two evils I would prefer, I would always pick the peaceful one.
> people die in quiet desperation
To me this seems a much more dignified way to die than in a fit of mad violence, trying to take what isn't yours.
And likewise: everybody wants dignity. But I don’t see anything particularly dignified in suicides of shame or abandonment.
The whole problem here is that this isn't true. Some significant majority of us do. But there is enough of a minority who are content with violence and chaos as to totally destroy peace and order if they are left unchecked. This is true basically any place criminality is studied. The only remaining question is how do we deal with this minority?
As someone without aggressive inclinations, I'm don't have sympathy or regard for those who display them. As a matter of primacy, I would like to live in a peaceful society. Anyone who violates this basic social contract has lost their humanity in my eyes. I would not object to their summary execution (in cases of absolute certainty of guilt), much as dangerous animals are routinely euthanized.
The maintenance of civilized order, and resolution of conflict via due process, are the only things distinguishing people from animals. This isn't remotely comparable to making the trains run on time.
> I don’t see anything particularly dignified in suicides of shame or abandonment.
To me there is nothing more dignified than being unwilling to impose yourself on others. If no one wants to help you, and you cannot continue on your own, then taking your own life is the only dignified course, given the alternatives.
> people you deem unworthy
I'm not deeming anyone "unworthy". I'm just pointing out that humans who act literally like dangerous animals should be treated as such. To me, humanity is a mode of behaviour, not an irrevocable trait.
I eagerly await your application of the same logic to tailpipe emissions.
Aggression and violence are clearly very different things. If they weren't, self-defence would not be a justification for anything. Ignoring this clear and sharp distinction does nothing to help you either.
Why should humans who behave indistinguishably from dangerous wild animals be treated any differently?
Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective?
> primary danger being to themselves
The secondary danger posed to innocent people, as well as the knock-on effects of normalizing minor property crime (colloquially "we can't have nice things") and the erosion of the innate trust in strangers that more civilized places tend to have, don't seem worth feeling good about how empathetic and virtuous you are.
Because they aren't dangerous wild animals, while dangerous wild animals are. In humans dangerous wild behaviour is a (hopefully, and ususally) more or less temporary and fixable aberration, while in many kinds of animals it's the immutable default.
That difference shouldn't be too difficult to grasp, or is it?
> Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective?
Not at fixing the immediate danger, but yes, as a means of maintaining a human(e) society it seems rather ineffective.
The humans in question are dangerous, they're not civilized (so they're wild), and they're animals, so yes, they are.
> In humans dangerous wild behaviour is a (hopefully, and ususally) more or less temporary and fixable aberration
This isn't substantiated by research. Quite the opposite actually, psychologists have found that no intervention is effective in modifying violent antisocial behaviour in young males (and it's almost entirely young males). The only solution seems to be incarceration until around the age of 30, at which point most people simply age out of these behaviour patterns.
Also, there are many dangerous animals that can be rehabilitated, pet dogs for instance. It doesn't stop us from mandating they be put down.
> as a means of maintaining a human(e) society it seems rather ineffective.
I'm asserting it's effective at maintaining peace and order. I'm also asserting that the fact of peace and order is more important than the treatment of those who violate it.
And I could assert quite a lot about your assertions, the mindset behind them, and what kind of society that leads to.
But I can't be arsed to: No matter how many deluded authoritarians you manage to bring to their senses, or just reduce to a heap of smoking online cinders, more fresh ones just keep popping up. And I got bored with Usenet flamewars decades ago.
I am certainly not a libertarian. Having said that, here is a scenario which clarifies the difference between "aggression" and "violence", imo - someone peacefully living in their home, when someone breaks in for a burglary. At that point, if the homeowner shoots and kills the burglar, that behavior is non-aggressive, violent and justified in my opinion.
So yes, definitely not hairsplitting and nothing to do with liberatarianism.
Then you would’ve euthanized nearly all of Japan circa WWII, since their widely popular militaristic regime committed countless atrocities across Asia/Pacific and shattered peaceful society for millions around the world.
It's like how killer whales share their sense of self with others in the pod.
Japanese prisons are inhumane by American standards, but cheap and very effective. They don't allow prisoners to interact or form a prison culture, so they don't function as criminal training centers. Consequently, crime rates in Japan are among the lowest in the world, despite declining economic conditions and dense populations.
Extremely.
There is a reason they have the highest conviction rate in the world.
It’s not justice.
It’s the social expectation that the law officers are correct, no matter what.
If you are charged, you are guilty, as you cannot bring shame to the police.
No need to pretend they are just or proper.
Japan isn’t the only country with a brutal criminal justice system. Many of the other examples have high crime.
> When and how to speak. Strict silence is observed the majority of the time. During leisure times, talking should be done in a low voice so as not to disturb others. Utmost respect must be used when addressing guards or punishments will follow.
1. https://gaijinass.com/2017/03/30/brutal-realities-of-prison-...
Not just that, I think.
What's true of Japan is also true of parts of Western Europe.
>If someone is peeing on the street, they think oh how this makes my country look. In SF someone peeing in the street thinks aaah so much relief.
In France, public urination is viewed as an unofficial human right[0], but I don't think you'd have SF's problems in Paris.
It's just more "civilized" societies (with better education, law enforcement, social safety nets, regional investment, etc.).
The U.S. is a step towards Pandora from Borderlands (in scale, material social investment, and cultural ethos).
0: https://www.npr.org/2018/09/11/646567224/paris-tries-to-cont...
They still have a homeless problem, it's just without exacerbating factors.
Not prosecuting property crimes has to be the biggest what the hell did they think was going to happen I have ever seen. Impunity is a slippery slope.
There’s an enormous amount of abuse in homeless encampments and on the streets. Shutting down psych hospitals didn’t reduce the abuse, it just moved it from a system we’re responsible for and could improve, to an un-system we can ignore and can’t improve. IMO, shuttering the wards was cruel.
Maybe you know different people than I do but I don't think that line of thought is as common as you think.
You know there's countries out there which aren't trapped in endless recividism cycles and enormous organized crime recruitment in the penal system right?
As for property crime, no one wants to live in a society where someone can steal your stuff with impunity, as the broadly supported recent recall of the DA in SF has clearly shown.
Sad that you're so quick to chock up issues in the USA to "not enough of us are nice people" when there are huge material differences between the USA and every other developed nation.
This can't be the whole story because a "mentally ill drug addict" is still the same person even if they buy something for $1 and become a customer.
it is safer so long as you are ok with your rights being infringed every now and then.
https://old.reddit.com/r/japan/comments/v8p9ga/japanese_poli...
> You can't carry ANY dangerous objects without a justified reason. E.g., you're going camping.
> The blade length is one law. Carrying it without reason is another law.
> Don't leave tools in your car, for example. You can get arrested over a screwdriver.
As an aside, I'm not sure how we are being consistent in the west. We have all-powerful governments that literally have life and death power over us, and yet we cosplay about having "rights" like privacy. I know it's not a fair comparison and there is nuance, but on some level we have to understand that we are subjects, property even, because we have no fundamental rights if we have government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Japan
Imagine seriously claiming Japan is non racist and a good place for non Japanese to prosper (maybe white folks can).
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498513920/Embedded-Racism-Japans...
> Consequently, businesses around Japan display “Japanese Only” signs, denying entry to all 'foreigners' on sight. Employers and landlords routinely refuse jobs and apartments to foreign applicants. Japanese police racially profile 'foreign-looking' bystanders for invasive questioning on the street. Legislators, administrators, and pundits portray foreigners as a national security threat and call for their segregation and expulsion.
Japanphiles will sing and dance around this discrimination.
I'll elect to go a step further than your criticisms in that I think it's beyond racism in that country. They can be kind of mean over there even within each other. It's a culture where bullying is super common and getting along there is understanding that people will probably not meet the average western ideals of "niceness" in general. But hey at least they won't steal from you
We can't have nice things because not enough of us are nice people. In places like Japan, where people are fundamentally more well-behaved, they can have nice things. I dare someone to ask why Japan doesn't have a problem with violent, drug-addicted, vagrants.