- "at least until it becomes much more accurate"

You imply that you would support universal panopticon surveillance of public life, and your main concern is that it isn't good enough?

A time-series database of every person and their life's worldline, the coordinate path they traced across the planet's surface? In order to make crime impossible, to guarantee perpetual safety?

...the Republic will Be reorganized... into the FIRST GALACTIC EMPIRE

for a safe... and secure... society

applause

What's worse, is they don't even use it to solve crimes. People will send police ring camera evidence of crimes and the police often ignore it

So you know this will be used selectively, when they want to, and only then.

But, be assured the feds will not give it up. They keep on renewing their spying powers over Americans and will not give those up either --which is a worse violation of the US constitution.

> demilitarization

Can you explain what that term means in this context?

I'm not sure of exact timing and laws that are in place but basically since 2003 actual military equipment has made its way from the armed forces to local police departments all over the country. I believe in many cases it has come free of charge. As a result you see cops in small towns armed like they're going to war in Fallujah.

Yep, easy to google, I'm not sure why folks want us to summarize and explain it all here for them. It's been going on for years and when you have stuff like that, you unfortunately tend to find a reason to use it.

Things that are political or politics-adjacent often mean different things to different people (e.g. "defund the police"). Someone asking someone else for a definition of their own meaning helps prevent a shouting match.

Personally it means taking their long guns and any type of armored vehicles away. I dont want to see cops with SBRs, APCs, night vision equipment, kitted out rifles or any of the other trappings of military special forces or death squads. I could see perhaps some exceptions but not just for any municipal PD.

Along this line but to a greater extreme that I dont actually think is possible right now is taking all their guns away. Generally the argument for cops having guns is so they can defend themselves from armed and violent criminals. This implies using those guns to shoot said criminals before they can hurt cops. I am against this because I believe in the rule of law and that is circumventing the entire judicial system by making the officer capable of being judge jury and executioner. This is wrong and undermines the entire judicial apparatus.

I would have guessed the primary argument for armed police would be to scare criminals and dissuade them from violent crime. I'd guess some people would argue that having N fewer incidents of cops murdering suspects isn't worth having X% more crime overall. But I'd also expect it's really hard to build a statistical model for how cause and effect would work.

Would you say that this is a topic where there's a clear utilitarian winner, or not?

Well theres a couple ways to come at this first theres the idea that as you put it N fewer incidents of cops murdering people is proportionate to some decrease in crime deterrence. Then theres my preferred perspective which is that the strength and legitimacy of the rule of law tends to be a greater force in benefitting society than any % increase or decrease of the other factors. I think weve done a great job creating the framework for a generally equitable and reasonable justice system (especially considering that its not set in stone and we can adjust it to be more effective as we see fit) and just have done a less than great job at implementing it.

To answer your question I dont think theres a clear winner but as I generally believe in the forward march of civilization I do think we can simultaneously disarm cops and reduce crime while also making the judicial system more focused on rehab and less on punishment. I'm bullish on empathy, freedom and peace!

What do you think?

That makes sense to me. However, I live in an area with very little crime, so I might be biased towards an approach that centers on the legitimacy of the rule of law, without me needing to worry much about law and order being the result of that commitment. I wonder if you consider El Salvador to be an exception to your rule, or if you think Bukele is actually restoring effectual rule of law. Ecuador is another similar case.

Do you think Bukele is a "good leader"?

I have a pretty low opinion of Bukele in general. I think the tactics used for the seemingly miraculous suppression of gangs actually weaken the rule of law in an abstract way.

I think law and order rest on a contract with the governed. Robert Peel probably got much (though not all IMO) of this right and as far as El Salvador goes I think 5th and 6th of his Peelian principles are the most trampled in Bukele's El Salvador. Something about Bukele's regime somehow reminds me a bit too much of Italy in the 1920s.

I would like to think that the rule of law can be so strengthened and engrained in society and the citizenry so moral and educated and resources and care so abundant and given freely that down the road we wont need cops.

Let them keep the long guns (of reasonable calibers; not, say, .50 BMG). It doesn't make much of a difference in terms of lethality, but long guns are much easier to shoot accurately, and the average American cop is very bad at that as it is.

It's not too soon to read Vitale's "End of Policing," which was a hot read during George Floyd, and has not grown less relevant.

It's not even about accuracy, it's about the erosion of privacy

Theres already no expectation of privacy in public. Its fine, the panopticon already exists.

Democracy is great we can elect legislators that enact laws that align with our values. The trick is making sure that the "law enforcement" actually does what it says on the box and simultaneously to punish overreach of law enforcement the same way we punish any other crime.

> we can elect legislators that enact laws that align with our values

Not really, though. Here in US, most of the time, best case is that we can elect legislators that won't enact the laws that horrify us the most (but they will still enact plenty of nasty stuff).

Yes this is true mostly because we as a country have become more and more disengaged from policy discussions and active participation in politics in general. This combined with older people being much more likely to vote and to vote conservative has led to the sort of multi-decade-incumbent ridden congress we have now.

This can pretty easily be solved by younger people voting more and enacting ranked choice voting. America is so cool because nothing (except maybe the bill of rights) is set in stone, we can change how it is!

Younger people voting more in the primaries would help a great deal.

With respect to ranked choice, that would certainly help a lot, except that both parties by now have realized that it is a threat to their dominance. You kinda expect that from Republicans, but there have been a slew of pieces critical of ranked choice and basically everything other than winner-takes-all from the left as well lately, accusing it of being racist etc.

Yeah its pretty gross that the left is against ranked choice and it also somewhat validates the whole Trumpist "uniparty" conspiracy theory. I do think its coming in the future as most younger people I know are totally supportive of it if I bring it up with them. I also think it would increase voter turnout in younger demographics as well.

All in all I think its important that we as a society bring more people into the political conversation. I want conservatives and liberals in the same room disagreeing more. I think that would help more than any other single thing.

> demilitarization of departments would be a great step in making this country safer.

there needs to be a qualifier attached to that comment: safer from police. It won't make the country itself safer. demilitarizing the police will not prevent schools/churches/movie theaters from getting shot up by someone. demilitarizing the police will not stop gang violence. by all means, reign in the out of control over weaponized "peace" officers, but please, let's be realistic on what that will actually do to overall safety.

I do not agree that it needs a qualifier. My opinion is that safety as a whole would improve with those four suggestions implemented.

You can disagree, but if you think it would make safety worse you probably should point out how those changes would result in a more unsafe country not just that it wouldn't solve all problems.

I just listed how. I stipulated it would make it safer from police, but then listed how other things would not be improved. I do not believe I wrote it in a confusing manner. You not willing to accept that improving on type of danger does not make all danger safe. By all means, move the needle, but don't paint with a wider brush than what the needle is actually moving.

It seems I read your comment as more anti-demilitarization than it was. It seemed like you were implying the US would become less safe by implementing the suggestions. If your intent was only that improving safety in one specific way does not merit being called safer in general, that point was not adequately separated from a pro-militarized police position.

I would guess most people are ok with the implication from "better on metric X in some way" -> "better on metric X". If that is a particular issue for you, you probably should make a specific effort to make that point clear.

> by all means, reign in the out of control over weaponized "peace" officers, but please, let's be realistic on what that will actually do to overall safety.

> By all means, move the needle, but don't paint with a wider brush than what the needle is actually moving.

If you compared these lines from both of your comments, the first can be interpreted to imply that overall safety will actually go down if the suggestions are implemented whereas the second seems hard to misinterpret from what I believe to be your position.

were you confused by the use of scare quotes? when someone shows up in full military armor with automatic rifles, "peace" is not the word that comes to mind. I'm really not sure where a "pro-militarization" from anything I've written could be inferred.

>demilitarizing the police will not prevent schools/churches/movie theaters from getting shot up by someone. demilitarizing the police will not stop gang violence.

Militarizing the police hasn't really done a good job of preventing those things, either. A militarized police responds to those incidents, usually well after there have been plenty of casualties.

I have been in the boonies, lived in the "hood" and seen plenty of illegal activity in younger days. Throughout all that crime and poverty the most dangerous people I encountered were the boys in blue. Holding cops accountable for their actions and taking their long guns and tanks away will certainly move the "safety needle" far more than any other single thing in the US today.