Train burglaries in LA(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Train burglaries in LA
https://twitter.com/johnschreiber/status/1481770722271760384
651 comments
In no particular order:
The rich are getting richer faster than the rest of us.
Real wages are stagnant. Social safety nets are constantly being removed.
Labor protections have been being rolled back or enforcement lax since the ATC strike.
Atomization and alienation have taken root.
The mythos of the nuclear family being paramount is fully embedded in the culture, destroying the older concept of a broader family and community taking part in the rearing of the next generation and just general socialization.
We're heading to the failure of multiple systems, including food production and power, due to climate change and the increasing frequency of disastrous weather systems.
"Greed is good" has been a value promulgated by the elites for a few generations now.
Things are getting more expensive faster than wage growth, especially basics and things needed for economic upward mobility (housing, education, healthcare, etc).
Identity politics and wedge issues are dividing people who otherwise have similar interests.
Modern life is anxiety and depression inducing, creating a rise in interpersonal conflict.
Our government is no longer accountable to the people or representative of them in any real way unless you're in the top quintile of wealth/income (and that is generous).
All of these things, and many more, are ripping apart the social contract. People no longer feel invested in the wellbeing of the places in which they reside or the governmental and societal systems they are a part of. Instead, they merely endure them with resentment. This won't end well.
The rich are getting richer faster than the rest of us.
Real wages are stagnant. Social safety nets are constantly being removed.
Labor protections have been being rolled back or enforcement lax since the ATC strike.
Atomization and alienation have taken root.
The mythos of the nuclear family being paramount is fully embedded in the culture, destroying the older concept of a broader family and community taking part in the rearing of the next generation and just general socialization.
We're heading to the failure of multiple systems, including food production and power, due to climate change and the increasing frequency of disastrous weather systems.
"Greed is good" has been a value promulgated by the elites for a few generations now.
Things are getting more expensive faster than wage growth, especially basics and things needed for economic upward mobility (housing, education, healthcare, etc).
Identity politics and wedge issues are dividing people who otherwise have similar interests.
Modern life is anxiety and depression inducing, creating a rise in interpersonal conflict.
Our government is no longer accountable to the people or representative of them in any real way unless you're in the top quintile of wealth/income (and that is generous).
All of these things, and many more, are ripping apart the social contract. People no longer feel invested in the wellbeing of the places in which they reside or the governmental and societal systems they are a part of. Instead, they merely endure them with resentment. This won't end well.
I think some of these things ring true but you missed a few obvious ones, most of this stuff has been going on in California which is being governed into oblivion by its leaders:
- California is getting very soft on crime recently, people now realize they can rob and steal what they want and there are zero consequences for it, this has lead to almost a complete collapse of order in most major california cities(see excessive smash and grabs($1B stolen in a few weeks in LA/SF bay area) and skyrocketing drug use(SF has more addicts than high school students) and homelessness, along with car jackings and robberies). I live in california and my family has been here for over a hundred years so I have seen its rapid deterioration in the past 3-4 years.
- Complete abandonment of any type of positive morality from the media or any leaders.
- Extreme division due to both right and left moving farther from the center.
- Sky high college costs have made things very difficult for people that are in college and those leaving the system are left with life crushing debt.
- Housing and rent are at all time highs due to excessive money printing and over generous govt. handouts the past 1-2 years.
- Jobs are available and are plentiful there are just not enough workers for the positions or qualified people for the higher earning ones, in addition alot of people were making more sitting around getting checks and enhanced unemployment than working at the lower wage positions.
- I traveled to multiple states over the last year(Hawaii, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Oregon) and this stuff is not happening everywhere, its mainly in CA and NYC and other high density urban areas.
- California is getting very soft on crime recently, people now realize they can rob and steal what they want and there are zero consequences for it, this has lead to almost a complete collapse of order in most major california cities(see excessive smash and grabs($1B stolen in a few weeks in LA/SF bay area) and skyrocketing drug use(SF has more addicts than high school students) and homelessness, along with car jackings and robberies). I live in california and my family has been here for over a hundred years so I have seen its rapid deterioration in the past 3-4 years.
- Complete abandonment of any type of positive morality from the media or any leaders.
- Extreme division due to both right and left moving farther from the center.
- Sky high college costs have made things very difficult for people that are in college and those leaving the system are left with life crushing debt.
- Housing and rent are at all time highs due to excessive money printing and over generous govt. handouts the past 1-2 years.
- Jobs are available and are plentiful there are just not enough workers for the positions or qualified people for the higher earning ones, in addition alot of people were making more sitting around getting checks and enhanced unemployment than working at the lower wage positions.
- I traveled to multiple states over the last year(Hawaii, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Oregon) and this stuff is not happening everywhere, its mainly in CA and NYC and other high density urban areas.
> - I traveled to multiple states over the last year(Hawaii, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Oregon) and this stuff is not happening everywhere, its mainly in CA and NYC and other high density urban areas.
You are claiming this isn't happening in those states, but especially New Mexico and Oregon, ... it is definitely happening in those states, so I question your experience with the other ones. Out of those, maybe Utah is not having those problems? Even as an island, Hawaii has had huge problems for decades, perhaps the worst (housing affordability, homelessness, rising crime rate).
You are claiming this isn't happening in those states, but especially New Mexico and Oregon, ... it is definitely happening in those states, so I question your experience with the other ones. Out of those, maybe Utah is not having those problems? Even as an island, Hawaii has had huge problems for decades, perhaps the worst (housing affordability, homelessness, rising crime rate).
> zero consequences
California's incarceration rate is already double or triple that of Canada, Japan or Western Europe.
California's incarceration rate is already double or triple that of Canada, Japan or Western Europe.
Because of mandatory minimum sentences keeping people in jail for a long time. Just because that’s a bad policy doesn’t necessarily mean that sending people to jail at all is a bad idea.
Do you somehow think that creating a containment system works in solving crime? It alienates and breeds recidivism. We can’t lock everyone up for life.
>Extreme division due to both right and left moving farther from the center
This says a lot about your position in what you imagine is the 'center'; the reality is that both sides are only moving further right. This has been happening for decades.
This says a lot about your position in what you imagine is the 'center'; the reality is that both sides are only moving further right. This has been happening for decades.
>the reality is that both sides are only moving further right. This has been happening for decades.
This is a false statement according to actual studies. Democrats have been moving further left at a higher rate than Republicans have been moving further right. [0] [1]
Before you say this study is outdated and therefore no longer relevant, you need to find a well regarded study that supports your original claim.
[0] http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/201...
[1] https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pew-research-c...
This is a false statement according to actual studies. Democrats have been moving further left at a higher rate than Republicans have been moving further right. [0] [1]
Before you say this study is outdated and therefore no longer relevant, you need to find a well regarded study that supports your original claim.
[0] http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/201...
[1] https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pew-research-c...
The build back better bill was basically the most left bill that’s been introduced with serious consideration in legislature.
Homicide and violent crime _has_ increased nationwide, and not just in California or in cities with progressive DAs. Florida and Texas, two states that frequently compare themselves against California, saw a similar pattern where property crimes decreased in 2020, but violent crimes increased, and continued to increase in 2021.
I think some of the points in your comment may be valid, especially regarding extreme division, loss of societal trust, and growing inequality. Trust in police and in our institutions probably hit an all time low in 2020. But I think pointing purely to "progressive DAs" doesn't map to reality.
I think some of the points in your comment may be valid, especially regarding extreme division, loss of societal trust, and growing inequality. Trust in police and in our institutions probably hit an all time low in 2020. But I think pointing purely to "progressive DAs" doesn't map to reality.
>- Housing and rent are at all time highs due to excessive money printing and over generous govt. handouts the past 1-2 years.
Actually, I think they're at all-time highs because you literally refuse to build anything except suburban hellscapes full of single-family houses made of ticky-tacky that all look just the same. I'm serious about this. California's recently-passed upzoning law is the only effective policy intervention for housing I've seen from your state in decades.
Actually, I think they're at all-time highs because you literally refuse to build anything except suburban hellscapes full of single-family houses made of ticky-tacky that all look just the same. I'm serious about this. California's recently-passed upzoning law is the only effective policy intervention for housing I've seen from your state in decades.
Most places are weak on crime. We have a judge in Minneapolis over the last week:
1. Some guy chased a woman in his car and she ran to a fire station. He crashed into the fire station and fought firefighters. Released 0 bail.
2. Violent criminal with a long past let out of jail to attend funeral and hasn’t returned.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. We have constant 0 bail for young carjackers who steal peoples cars for joy rides.
It’s madness. I don’t care what anyone says about “punishment doesn’t deter crime”. That’s against human nature and total horseshit.
1. Some guy chased a woman in his car and she ran to a fire station. He crashed into the fire station and fought firefighters. Released 0 bail.
2. Violent criminal with a long past let out of jail to attend funeral and hasn’t returned.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. We have constant 0 bail for young carjackers who steal peoples cars for joy rides.
It’s madness. I don’t care what anyone says about “punishment doesn’t deter crime”. That’s against human nature and total horseshit.
The US has a larger share of its population in prison than any other nation, about 6x higher than Canada, Japan and Western Europe.
Is the problem really that too few people are in prison?
Is the problem really that too few people are in prison?
So?
We have many criminals.
Criminals deserve punishment, including jail should the crime be severe enough.
Criminals prey on law abiding citizens.
If you won't enforce the law, citizens will take the law into the their own hands.
Then you will be forced to cry for criminals even more than you are doing now.
We have many criminals.
Criminals deserve punishment, including jail should the crime be severe enough.
Criminals prey on law abiding citizens.
If you won't enforce the law, citizens will take the law into the their own hands.
Then you will be forced to cry for criminals even more than you are doing now.
Imprisoning people is treating the symptom, not the cause.
If you don't treat the cause, then you'll just continue getting more symptoms.
Maybe we should figure out what it is about the USA that keeps generating so much more antisocial behavior than everywhere else and fix that.
If you don't treat the cause, then you'll just continue getting more symptoms.
Maybe we should figure out what it is about the USA that keeps generating so much more antisocial behavior than everywhere else and fix that.
Seems like the problem in the US is there are pockets of society which have multi generational issues where the parents don’t know how to teach their kids to be successful since their lives have been a failure too. As well as an environment that normalises crime.
It seems extremely difficult to break this cycle without actually removing kids from their parents/friend groups.
It seems extremely difficult to break this cycle without actually removing kids from their parents/friend groups.
Another complicating factor could be that the US has a more diverse population. Tribalism is hard to overcome, especially with a messy history of racism and oppression.
How is this unique to the US?
That is a really simple take on law and human behavior.
Are we really going to ignore all of our modern understanding of psychology to say "criminal bad, criminal deserve jail"?
One of reasons of large prison population is long sentences. Shorter sentences with better enforcement can be a better deterrent.
Yes, if they deserve to be in prison and aren't.
So then the problem is why do more people deserve to be in prison in the US in particular?
Whichever way you cut it, it's bad for society for it to be such a large percentage.
Whichever way you cut it, it's bad for society for it to be such a large percentage.
Too few and too many aren't mutually exclusive, it is quite possible that the wrong people are in prison.
You could punish in other ways than prison.
Especially in a way to make them repair the damage they did.
"I don’t care what anyone says about..."
I can see you're enraged.
There's the real problem about everything - making judgments and decisions about the world based on emotions, not facts. You should care what other people say, especially the people who study things scientifically. I'm sure it sounds great and judicious to your enraged lizard brain to lock someone up and throw away the key, but there's a lot more to consider than what makes you feel good.
I can see you're enraged.
There's the real problem about everything - making judgments and decisions about the world based on emotions, not facts. You should care what other people say, especially the people who study things scientifically. I'm sure it sounds great and judicious to your enraged lizard brain to lock someone up and throw away the key, but there's a lot more to consider than what makes you feel good.
This is anecdotal evidence, and should not be taken seriously.
> The mythos of the nuclear family being paramount is fully embedded in the culture, destroying the older concept of a broader family and community taking part in the rearing of the next generation and just general socialization.
I think we're past "nuclear family" at this point. Getting married is actively discouraged by our legal system.
I think we're past "nuclear family" at this point. Getting married is actively discouraged by our legal system.
True. I certainly am not. Definitely part of Atomization. Large swathes of the country, especially the religious and conservative still buy into this mythos though.
>The mythos of the nuclear family being paramount is fully embedded in the culture, destroying the older concept of a broader family and community taking part in the rearing of the next generation and just general socialization.
It's not a "mythos", it's a fact that children raised in nuclear families have much better outcomes than those who are not [0]. Practically every sociological study confirms this.
Black children are the least likely to be raised in nuclear families in the US, and aligned with the study, are the most likely to suffer from health and mental/emotional/sociological issues.
It's recently become some weird leftist/neo-marxist talking point to subvert the "Western proscribed nuclear family". BLM had to remove this talking point from their website after it was widely criticized [1].
[0] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/black-lives-matter-removes-language-1...
It's not a "mythos", it's a fact that children raised in nuclear families have much better outcomes than those who are not [0]. Practically every sociological study confirms this.
Black children are the least likely to be raised in nuclear families in the US, and aligned with the study, are the most likely to suffer from health and mental/emotional/sociological issues.
It's recently become some weird leftist/neo-marxist talking point to subvert the "Western proscribed nuclear family". BLM had to remove this talking point from their website after it was widely criticized [1].
[0] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/black-lives-matter-removes-language-1...
We're not talking about the nuclear family in opposition to single parents or blended families. We're talking about it in opposition to extended and clan families. Which is why I explicitly mentioned extended ("broader") families and communities. Obviously having a mom and a dad is good.
Come on dude, use context clues.
Come on dude, use context clues.
>We're talking about it in opposition to extended and clan families.
Which are specifically covered in the CDC report that I listed above.
"Children living in blended (i.e., stepparent), cohabiting, unmarried biological or adoptive, extended, and other families were generally disadvantaged relative to children in nuclear families, and were, for the most part, comparable to children living in single-parent families regarding most health status and access to care measures."
> Which is why I explicitly mentioned extended ("broader") families and communities.
Those "broader" families and communities have unfortunately been failing Black Americans for generations.
>Come on dude, use context clues.
Come on dude, use reading comprehension. At least you admitted here for all to see that you'd rather be a virtue signaler over being a data driven adult.
Which are specifically covered in the CDC report that I listed above.
"Children living in blended (i.e., stepparent), cohabiting, unmarried biological or adoptive, extended, and other families were generally disadvantaged relative to children in nuclear families, and were, for the most part, comparable to children living in single-parent families regarding most health status and access to care measures."
> Which is why I explicitly mentioned extended ("broader") families and communities.
Those "broader" families and communities have unfortunately been failing Black Americans for generations.
>Come on dude, use context clues.
Come on dude, use reading comprehension. At least you admitted here for all to see that you'd rather be a virtue signaler over being a data driven adult.
Again, I was not opposing the nuclear family to families without mothers and fathers. This is a misreading of what I am saying and clearly you are just engaging in the discussion to grind your axe about single parent households in black communities.
As I said, I agree that having a mom and dad is good. It produces better outcomes than having one or neither. Go grind your axe elsewhere.
As I said, I agree that having a mom and dad is good. It produces better outcomes than having one or neither. Go grind your axe elsewhere.
Kids benefit from having uncles, aunts, cousins, and grandparents around as well as just their mom and dad. God knows I did!
It shouldn't be either-A-or-B; there are plenty of families whose day-to-day operation is as a nuclear family, but who have regular (more than once-a-week) contact with extended relatives. I don't think that's what this is describing; an "extended" family here is where the group of people who go to sleep every night and wake up every morning in the same house are more than just mom and dad and the kids.
> the rich are getting richer faster than the rest of us
Isn’t that just a restatement if the rather mundane concept of compound interest?
If savings account A has $100 and account B has $1mil, does it go without saying that account B will grow far faster?
I never understood why compound interest should be seen as a negative. What is the counter proposal?
Isn’t that just a restatement if the rather mundane concept of compound interest?
If savings account A has $100 and account B has $1mil, does it go without saying that account B will grow far faster?
I never understood why compound interest should be seen as a negative. What is the counter proposal?
Sounds like a description of neoliberalism :)
> are incredibly hard to weed out of a population, once it has taken root.
Is the root of this issue really "in" the population? Or is the population merely responding to a set of external circumstances?
I'm uneasy when someone says something like "weed out of a population." Many dark journeys have started with this idea.
> However, a 2 year period of cultural erosion can lead to this regression getting cemented as a modern cultural identity of non-elite US.
From my perspective, this erosion started showing itself during Occupy Wall Street. Our entire economy was set on fire and very few, if any, people were actually held responsible for that. They were bailed out, and everyone was expected to move on.
If I had a sense that something needed to be "weeded out" of my society, I know that's where I would start.
Is the root of this issue really "in" the population? Or is the population merely responding to a set of external circumstances?
I'm uneasy when someone says something like "weed out of a population." Many dark journeys have started with this idea.
> However, a 2 year period of cultural erosion can lead to this regression getting cemented as a modern cultural identity of non-elite US.
From my perspective, this erosion started showing itself during Occupy Wall Street. Our entire economy was set on fire and very few, if any, people were actually held responsible for that. They were bailed out, and everyone was expected to move on.
If I had a sense that something needed to be "weeded out" of my society, I know that's where I would start.
I wonder how much of this correlates with the drop in religious participation. Religion, for better or worse, was a useful tool for stigmatizing bad behavior and incentivizing good behavior
Do we have any evidence that religion reduces bad behavior? We know some of the most religious countries (Mexico, Syria) are relatively more dangerous than more secular countries like France or China. Is there a better data source to look at here?
You would have to adjust for all external influences. Mexico and Syria are mostly dangerous because of failed USA policies (drug war, war on terror) than their internal cultures
> Religion, for better or worse, was a useful tool for stigmatizing bad behavior and incentivizing good behavior
Sweden is one of the least religious countries in Europe, and one of the safest.
Sweden is one of the least religious countries in Europe, and one of the safest.
That is factually untrue, in the last decade;
"Approximately 13 percent of the population in Sweden experience problems in their own residential area with crime, violence or vandalism. It is one of the highest proportions in Europe."
https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/artiklar/2019/fler-upplev...
"Approximately 13 percent of the population in Sweden experience problems in their own residential area with crime, violence or vandalism. It is one of the highest proportions in Europe."
https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/artiklar/2019/fler-upplev...
I think it has to do with a purpose that religion served = values core to the identity of everyone in the nation.
Modern America has no common history. America has no common ethnicity, no common roots and now no common religion. The least religious nations are often ethnically homogeneous (Sweden, Korea) or have an incredibly strong national cultural identity of what it means to belong (France, Singapore).The US had neither, and then took down the one thing that held together 80% of the US as of 2000. ie. Christianity (mostly protestant-derived)
And I'm a Hindu-by-birth Atheist immigrant. So, I don't have any vested interest in the restoration of Europe-derived Christianity within the US.
To me, the closest thing to a common american identity is a combination of the following 3:
* Protestant values of hard work, merit and family
* Colorblind-live-and-let-live immigrant melting pot
* Capitalistic enterprising nature of shooting for the moon and that anyone can be a billionaire/President.
Now, these might not be perfect, but it was the closest thing to national values that 80% could get buy in on.
However, populist politics of the last 10 years and the change in wealth distribution post 2000 has seen wholesale rejection of almost all of these values from both the populist left and the populist right. As the nation continues fracturing, the resentment towards your fellow countrymen grows to the point that you feel no civic duty towards your fellow countrymen, and maybe even take joy in looting them.
Religion unites as long as it is homogeneous. High level of religious beliefs would not help much, if they didn't unify people through a collective identity. So in this case, high levels of religious participation would not have helped, because there would still never be any agreement on a common religious identity given the degree of religious heterogeneity.
On an aside, I always find it funny when people say that countries that tolerate heterogenous identities such as the US or India are discriminatory or racist. Yeah, as if you with your 95+% cultural/religious/ethnic homogeneity have any right to speak about diversity. You can already see Europe coming apart at its seams with a small influx of culturally diverse middle-eastern refugees. The friction you see, is a result of an open system that allows each of these incompatible cultural identities to get a voice in the national discourse.
Modern America has no common history. America has no common ethnicity, no common roots and now no common religion. The least religious nations are often ethnically homogeneous (Sweden, Korea) or have an incredibly strong national cultural identity of what it means to belong (France, Singapore).The US had neither, and then took down the one thing that held together 80% of the US as of 2000. ie. Christianity (mostly protestant-derived)
And I'm a Hindu-by-birth Atheist immigrant. So, I don't have any vested interest in the restoration of Europe-derived Christianity within the US.
To me, the closest thing to a common american identity is a combination of the following 3:
* Protestant values of hard work, merit and family
* Colorblind-live-and-let-live immigrant melting pot
* Capitalistic enterprising nature of shooting for the moon and that anyone can be a billionaire/President.
Now, these might not be perfect, but it was the closest thing to national values that 80% could get buy in on.
However, populist politics of the last 10 years and the change in wealth distribution post 2000 has seen wholesale rejection of almost all of these values from both the populist left and the populist right. As the nation continues fracturing, the resentment towards your fellow countrymen grows to the point that you feel no civic duty towards your fellow countrymen, and maybe even take joy in looting them.
Religion unites as long as it is homogeneous. High level of religious beliefs would not help much, if they didn't unify people through a collective identity. So in this case, high levels of religious participation would not have helped, because there would still never be any agreement on a common religious identity given the degree of religious heterogeneity.
On an aside, I always find it funny when people say that countries that tolerate heterogenous identities such as the US or India are discriminatory or racist. Yeah, as if you with your 95+% cultural/religious/ethnic homogeneity have any right to speak about diversity. You can already see Europe coming apart at its seams with a small influx of culturally diverse middle-eastern refugees. The friction you see, is a result of an open system that allows each of these incompatible cultural identities to get a voice in the national discourse.
> Religion unites as long as it is homogeneous.
Hindus in India divide and fight amongst themselves based on caste even though they all follow the same religion.
Hindus in India divide and fight amongst themselves based on caste even though they all follow the same religion.
America's always been a "credo" nation, and has always been pretty explicit about what its credo is. "We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In other words: freedom, equality, justice, democracy, and self-determination.
America's relationship with religion has always been complex. The first amendment simultaneously guarantees the free practice of religion and enshrines its separation from the state; as a government, the U.S. cannot make any law that preferences a particular religion. Many of the founders were Deists, which is a religion that simultaneously accepts the existence of God but also relies upon empiricism, rationality, and individual thought to divine His will. America is also explicitly not Protestant, and the dominant religion varies a lot from place to place. I grew up in New England, which has a Puritan early history but now is populated by largely Catholic Irish & Italian immigrants. My mom's childhood friends in NYC all seemed to be Jewish. In Utah, it's mostly Mormon.
I'd argue that the main reason America is falling apart is that we've forgotten those core values of liberty, equality, justice, democracy, and self-determination. These have always existed in some tension, but right now we're not doing a particularly good job of any of them. Instead the focus is on capitalism, virtue-signalling, protection from outsiders, preferencing your in-group, forcing your particular morality on others, and many other very human but very un-American activities.
In other words: freedom, equality, justice, democracy, and self-determination.
America's relationship with religion has always been complex. The first amendment simultaneously guarantees the free practice of religion and enshrines its separation from the state; as a government, the U.S. cannot make any law that preferences a particular religion. Many of the founders were Deists, which is a religion that simultaneously accepts the existence of God but also relies upon empiricism, rationality, and individual thought to divine His will. America is also explicitly not Protestant, and the dominant religion varies a lot from place to place. I grew up in New England, which has a Puritan early history but now is populated by largely Catholic Irish & Italian immigrants. My mom's childhood friends in NYC all seemed to be Jewish. In Utah, it's mostly Mormon.
I'd argue that the main reason America is falling apart is that we've forgotten those core values of liberty, equality, justice, democracy, and self-determination. These have always existed in some tension, but right now we're not doing a particularly good job of any of them. Instead the focus is on capitalism, virtue-signalling, protection from outsiders, preferencing your in-group, forcing your particular morality on others, and many other very human but very un-American activities.
Americans have quite a bit of shared history and culture. It's quite bizarre, not to mention factually incorrect, that you would say religion [of which is supposed to be completely separate from the state so that Americans wouldn't by default be defined by their religion] is what held together 80% of the US.
[deleted]
And that ... Theory about the lockdowns supposedly not being because of the virus but to hide a larger financial crisis/weath reallocation is spreading quite quickly at least at far as I can tell. That's not going to reduce tensions in that regard, that's for sure.
There is only circumstantial evidence but the story sounds plausible. If things continue like this, I'd wager that trump will return in 24
There is only circumstantial evidence but the story sounds plausible. If things continue like this, I'd wager that trump will return in 24
Outrageous behavior is being glorified because it drives clicks.
So many of these Alex Jones wannabe 'anti-maskers invade a store protesters', schoolboard meeting ravers get publicized because they get people fired up and drive clicks and ad revenue.
It's normalizing that the way to handle disagreement is to act out.
I'm sorry to say that this onslaught of terrible behavior isn't because people are tired of lockdowns, it's because it's great for driving ad traffic & getting $ from voters.
So many of these Alex Jones wannabe 'anti-maskers invade a store protesters', schoolboard meeting ravers get publicized because they get people fired up and drive clicks and ad revenue.
It's normalizing that the way to handle disagreement is to act out.
I'm sorry to say that this onslaught of terrible behavior isn't because people are tired of lockdowns, it's because it's great for driving ad traffic & getting $ from voters.
Do you have a source for this? We’re seeing similar things in my country and I’d love to understand why (and how we can make it go away) a little more
There’s another explanation that I find fits better: that the last ~70 years have been an extraordinary confluence of good luck and peak resource extraction that is no longer viable going forward. Scarcity was always going to become a thing again, and Covid pulled that crash forward by a decade.
There’s no stuffing the genie back in the bottle now. We’re going to be paying the price for the corporate excess of the 90s, 2000s and 2010s for the next few decades in the form of climate change, disinformation, authoritarianism and the ensuing civil unrest. Thanks to the combination of the last three we will continue to be unable to muster a coherent response to any problem going forward.
Maybe we can have some good times again eventually, but the next decade or two are going to be rough.
There’s no stuffing the genie back in the bottle now. We’re going to be paying the price for the corporate excess of the 90s, 2000s and 2010s for the next few decades in the form of climate change, disinformation, authoritarianism and the ensuing civil unrest. Thanks to the combination of the last three we will continue to be unable to muster a coherent response to any problem going forward.
Maybe we can have some good times again eventually, but the next decade or two are going to be rough.
Having the community police its members can only be done with the proper external incentives to that community. The times in history where clans or family managed their own delinquents where also times where the clan or family as a whole was called to pay for the damage.
What we have here is not a sudden lapse in morals - it's a result of, rather on purpose, individualism. Since the community has nothing to lose or gain, the community just stands aside and looks.
As an aside, this reminds me of gypsy villages in Romania - places where lines of concern between insiders and outsiders are so sharply drawn, that from the outside it looks like complete lawlessness. It's not - it's lawless only if you're an outsider, and that village doesn't care about you.
Social mechanisms can be pretty complex (and fascinating). TBH, rather than trying to figure them out, it might be easier in cases like that to just throw manpower (and cameras) at the problem. But long term - this is where it's very much worth it to have cops work with/as social workers and get embedded in their communities. That this got to where it got speaks volumes about police and citizens there being in a purely adversarial context - otherwise the first old lady to meet a cop 6 months ago would have told him what's going on and who's started it.
What we have here is not a sudden lapse in morals - it's a result of, rather on purpose, individualism. Since the community has nothing to lose or gain, the community just stands aside and looks.
As an aside, this reminds me of gypsy villages in Romania - places where lines of concern between insiders and outsiders are so sharply drawn, that from the outside it looks like complete lawlessness. It's not - it's lawless only if you're an outsider, and that village doesn't care about you.
Social mechanisms can be pretty complex (and fascinating). TBH, rather than trying to figure them out, it might be easier in cases like that to just throw manpower (and cameras) at the problem. But long term - this is where it's very much worth it to have cops work with/as social workers and get embedded in their communities. That this got to where it got speaks volumes about police and citizens there being in a purely adversarial context - otherwise the first old lady to meet a cop 6 months ago would have told him what's going on and who's started it.
Bingo. 'The community' ultimately does not own what's on the train. There is no communal interest in protecting the goods on the train; there may be an element of self preservation ("If the train is robbed, I can't buy the goods later!"), but there is little sense of communal preservation in a society that promotes individualism. The same thing applies to the thieves- anti-collective behavior is inevitable in a society that does not meet the needs of every individual.
Comment from someone on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/s2sjxj/los_angeles_th...):
> It’s not just in LA, theft and vandalism have gone way up on all the rail networks. My company is experiencing some of the worst loss numbers while in rail transit. We just announced that all transport carts will be welded shut and unwelded when it gets to the destination. Even locks aren’t enough.
> It’s not just in LA, theft and vandalism have gone way up on all the rail networks. My company is experiencing some of the worst loss numbers while in rail transit. We just announced that all transport carts will be welded shut and unwelded when it gets to the destination. Even locks aren’t enough.
Just the next iteration of bike theft.
Same tools, bigger rewards.
Of course, we did nothing when it was just bikes being stolen because it was just hippy car-free bike riders impacted.
Same tools, bigger rewards.
Of course, we did nothing when it was just bikes being stolen because it was just hippy car-free bike riders impacted.
People robbing rapid testing kits for the global pandemic from cargo trains entering LA sounds like something from a dystopian cyberpunk novel.
Lacks autonomous armed drones swarming around the train, "disencouraging" anyone who doesn't belong there to stay off the tracks.
I'm fairly certain the FAA is the only things preventing their use. They're already being deployed in India: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/western-railways-to-use-surv...
Why do I feel like this would be the simplest solution to this problem, and in fact so simple it's likely to occur in the next few years...
...okay, reality check, even if the autopilots get good enough, it'll still be incredibly easy to whack a drone into the train's overhead wires if you have a big enough stick, and now they potentially have to fix the cable, or maybe a blown transformer. Right.
...okay, reality check, even if the autopilots get good enough, it'll still be incredibly easy to whack a drone into the train's overhead wires if you have a big enough stick, and now they potentially have to fix the cable, or maybe a blown transformer. Right.
There are no overhead wires there. That's all Diesel-powered. Like most, or all freight tracks anyways? Maybe on the east coast, when shared with AMTRAK, or some local passenger network, if at all. Besides that, personally I wouldn't want to use any long sticks near any overhead wires. Brrrz, Brrrz, Brrrz
Reality check would be that the engines, or a 'caboose' would make an ideal drone carrier where they can reload. They'd also be the perfect beacon to follow, the same way tracks are laid out in very regular patterns. Anything which doesn't belong there?
Ängäyge!1!!
I'd call them TrackBlastR.
Ängäyge!1!!
I'd call them TrackBlastR.
How do you wack a flying drone? If it's in danger of hitting wires it can just fly higher? And how do you wield or even carry a 50m (150ft) or longer stick?. Do you mean shoot it down?
To be entirely honest I didn't think the scenario through. I was just thinking about the dystopian cyberpunk "that would be mad" of drones hanging around people trying to steal stuff from trains and didn't really envision what would really happen next.
Now I actually think about it (thanks), what would a drone be doing? Yelling really loudly? Getting footage of people's faces?
It's probably only a matter of time until drones end up equipped with taser units :/ (I honestly don't want to be around when they can actually shoot things...), but besides that I now realize they wouldn't really present a legitimate threat (yet). They'd just be very oversized mosquitoes.
I'd completely forgotten this is America though, where people can and do shoot at stuff they don't like and/or is annoying. That would be significantly more effective than a giant baseball bat (which would definitely look hilarious but be a lot less precise).
Now I actually think about it (thanks), what would a drone be doing? Yelling really loudly? Getting footage of people's faces?
It's probably only a matter of time until drones end up equipped with taser units :/ (I honestly don't want to be around when they can actually shoot things...), but besides that I now realize they wouldn't really present a legitimate threat (yet). They'd just be very oversized mosquitoes.
I'd completely forgotten this is America though, where people can and do shoot at stuff they don't like and/or is annoying. That would be significantly more effective than a giant baseball bat (which would definitely look hilarious but be a lot less precise).
How about paintballing the perpetrators with NEON-GLITTER, laced with something extremely stinky?
Or Napalm?
Or Napalm?
Noooo, that sounds awesome ;_; I really want to go build that :( (the non-napalm version)
FWIW it looks like a bunch of Russians had similar ideas 5 years ago and bolted a paintball gun to a drone (apparently with automatic targeting too): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8igjcW39T4k
FWIW it looks like a bunch of Russians had similar ideas 5 years ago and bolted a paintball gun to a drone (apparently with automatic targeting too): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8igjcW39T4k
Whoa.
Äxzällänt Äxikyushn!
:-)
Äxzällänt Äxikyushn!
:-)
Why bother with the complexity of drones when you could add armored “defense” weapons to the sides of the railcars themselves?
Seems like we are closer to "Demolition Man" to me than "Escape from LA"...but the year is just starting :)
Do you ever think to yourself that we're gradually headed to some dystopia like in the movie Elysium? Where a growing underclass is relegated to a garbage planet while the elites escape to a satellite world? Or at least parts of our planet?
I'm not even faulting the elites for it really -- how are you, in a non-authoritarian society, supposed to handle when basic services are under attack and can't effectively discipline or enforce law, either because you just can't police enough, people refuse to obey law and order any more, or you're not allowed to use force for political reasons? Or a certain level (or $ amount) of crime is just ok? All you can do is create greater moats around the areas you can protect and see if the underclass can sort itself out.
I see this kind of creeping / boiling the frog effect happening in lots of developments lately. (although I'm sure people of every generation have decried the end of the world too)
Take the Portland (or Oregon?) relaxation of drug penalties, etc. Sure, it only makes sense to stop criminalizing drug use when everyone's doing it and it's loading up your prisons. But you didn't exactly solve the problem. You just found a less bad way to deal with the effects. And you're still on a path where people are using drugs more and more, and the elites flee to their gated communities to let the underclass sort itself out downtown, because it's not "fair" or "equitable" to lock up people for drug use. "We need less policing, more understanding." Eventually you understand yourself all the way into a society that's broken down.
The sad thing is that the people who suffer most from crime and belief that having a system with rules is against them, are the poor and vulnerable.
I don't think our approaches to these problems is working well.
I'm not even faulting the elites for it really -- how are you, in a non-authoritarian society, supposed to handle when basic services are under attack and can't effectively discipline or enforce law, either because you just can't police enough, people refuse to obey law and order any more, or you're not allowed to use force for political reasons? Or a certain level (or $ amount) of crime is just ok? All you can do is create greater moats around the areas you can protect and see if the underclass can sort itself out.
I see this kind of creeping / boiling the frog effect happening in lots of developments lately. (although I'm sure people of every generation have decried the end of the world too)
Take the Portland (or Oregon?) relaxation of drug penalties, etc. Sure, it only makes sense to stop criminalizing drug use when everyone's doing it and it's loading up your prisons. But you didn't exactly solve the problem. You just found a less bad way to deal with the effects. And you're still on a path where people are using drugs more and more, and the elites flee to their gated communities to let the underclass sort itself out downtown, because it's not "fair" or "equitable" to lock up people for drug use. "We need less policing, more understanding." Eventually you understand yourself all the way into a society that's broken down.
The sad thing is that the people who suffer most from crime and belief that having a system with rules is against them, are the poor and vulnerable.
I don't think our approaches to these problems is working well.
Yes, I think this very often. In fact, I think it is an inevitable future evolution of society. It will likely start out with the oceans - private islands and super yachts are being rapidly built and purchased by elites around the world.
If you're a pleb, like me, I think the best bet is to just hunker down, keep your head down, stay away from mentally ill types, and focus on getting very good at a useful skill. The elite will still need software engineers to build out the dystopia.
If you're a pleb, like me, I think the best bet is to just hunker down, keep your head down, stay away from mentally ill types, and focus on getting very good at a useful skill. The elite will still need software engineers to build out the dystopia.
I would simply get rid of the political actors telling me it's immoral to maintain social order.
Are other cities that operate major Class I freight rail seeing the same looting issue, or is this just LA/UP "market disruption" that hasn't caught up with the rest of the country?
EDIT: To be sure, I wonder because my city is both HQ and a significant hub for one of those F500 major Class I freight rail operators, but I haven't heard of such brazen exploits happening locally...yet?
EDIT: To be sure, I wonder because my city is both HQ and a significant hub for one of those F500 major Class I freight rail operators, but I haven't heard of such brazen exploits happening locally...yet?
Its hard to say with just anecdotes, but this random person says it's not just Los Angeles. Another commenter mentioned a conductor-friend out of Louisiana is seeing similar things.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/s2sjxj/los_angeles_th...
I wonder if this is an evolution of the security cat & mouse game with shipping switching to have more random items people ordered directly to their home? Similar to porch-pirates being more of an issue today than 30 years ago.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/s2sjxj/los_angeles_th...
I wonder if this is an evolution of the security cat & mouse game with shipping switching to have more random items people ordered directly to their home? Similar to porch-pirates being more of an issue today than 30 years ago.
Containers carrying lots of packages headed directly to homes is new.
Before, if you broke into a container, you'd often find weird homogenous B2B stuff. Like a bunch of dog food.
Before, if you broke into a container, you'd often find weird homogenous B2B stuff. Like a bunch of dog food.
>Before, if you broke into a container, you'd often find weird homogenous B2B stuff. Like a bunch of dog food.
but presumably the volume of b2c stuff being shipped over rail hasn't changed? after all, the b2c stuff has to get to customers somehow. Maybe a random assortment makes it a more attractive target due to the skinner box effect (ie. lootboxes).
but presumably the volume of b2c stuff being shipped over rail hasn't changed? after all, the b2c stuff has to get to customers somehow. Maybe a random assortment makes it a more attractive target due to the skinner box effect (ie. lootboxes).
If you open up a container going to a Walmart warehouse, it might be filled with massive blocks of bulky items of dubious fence value and can be difficult to dig to anything good. Even if you get something "good", having 30 pairs of Beats headphones isn't so personally useful or easy to unload for cash. And it's probably in a massive box that isn't easy to move and isn't easy to determine the contents of compared to others.
If you open up a container of UPS shipments, and you grab one random bag out of there-- there will be valuable consumer goods in it.
If you open up a container of UPS shipments, and you grab one random bag out of there-- there will be valuable consumer goods in it.
> having 30 pairs of Beats headphones isn't so personally useful or easy to unload for cash
Why would that be hard? eBay, craigslist, Facebook groups, and other platforms exist which can be used to facilitate the quick and easy offloading of stolen goods.
Why would that be hard? eBay, craigslist, Facebook groups, and other platforms exist which can be used to facilitate the quick and easy offloading of stolen goods.
Instead of some number of Amazon packages with unknown contents going missing, cops and the recipient immediately know that $8k of headphones were stolen. It's obviously over the threshold of grand theft. Etc.
And then if anyone is poking around at secondary markets, you have a massive number of item X showing up new-in-box grey market in a zip code where a bunch of that item was stolen.
Compare to having 20 random consumer items, all stolen from different end-recipients. It's hard for any authority to know these items were stolen. It's hard to establish you stole them or were knowingly receiving stolen property. Even if they surmise that they're probably stolen, as far as they know you could have committed petty theft several times at unknown places.
And then if anyone is poking around at secondary markets, you have a massive number of item X showing up new-in-box grey market in a zip code where a bunch of that item was stolen.
Compare to having 20 random consumer items, all stolen from different end-recipients. It's hard for any authority to know these items were stolen. It's hard to establish you stole them or were knowingly receiving stolen property. Even if they surmise that they're probably stolen, as far as they know you could have committed petty theft several times at unknown places.
I agree it's probably easier to fence individual stolen items.
OTOH, I think your argument assumes criminals are lacking creativity... and that the police care and/or have the resources to track $8K worth of headphones. If $8K of headphones are stolen, how many % of total headphones sold on eBay/CL/FB/etc. per month is that? Also, who says they have to offload all the headphones immediately? What's to prevent a "criminal network" or a single person from creating 20 different eBay accounts, each selling one pair - location: obviously not near where they were stolen from. Repeat process once per x months or just wait a few months until the heat is lower. Or perhaps pass the headphones on to a larger "criminal network" who can resell them all over the US. Also on eBay one could just say "shipping from northern California" when in fact they are located in Southern California - who will verify that? Also you could take a few pair to pawn shops... some might even take multiple pairs at once. Also someone could gift a bunch to friends/family. I'm sure there are tons of tricks criminals use to offload stolen goods.
OTOH, I think your argument assumes criminals are lacking creativity... and that the police care and/or have the resources to track $8K worth of headphones. If $8K of headphones are stolen, how many % of total headphones sold on eBay/CL/FB/etc. per month is that? Also, who says they have to offload all the headphones immediately? What's to prevent a "criminal network" or a single person from creating 20 different eBay accounts, each selling one pair - location: obviously not near where they were stolen from. Repeat process once per x months or just wait a few months until the heat is lower. Or perhaps pass the headphones on to a larger "criminal network" who can resell them all over the US. Also on eBay one could just say "shipping from northern California" when in fact they are located in Southern California - who will verify that? Also you could take a few pair to pawn shops... some might even take multiple pairs at once. Also someone could gift a bunch to friends/family. I'm sure there are tons of tricks criminals use to offload stolen goods.
I'm reminded of recent realisations in the evolution of whales. The great size and efficiency of whales came about due to increased ocean productivity --- more available food, though often at widely-separated distances, an efficient feeding mechansism (lunge feeding), which could onboard vast quantities of krill in a single act, and the lack of any credible predators, allowing great whales to focus their evolutionary specialisation on long-distance speed and efficiency.
See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-blue-whal...
Similar principles apply to human transportation modes. In particular, safety of routes, for passengers and cargo, is absolutely paramount, and there's little that kills traffic, whether terminal or through-passage, than increased risk.
For rail, the equivalents are continent-spanning cargo operations, efficient freight loading and unloading (particularly via intermodal containerised traffic), and a lack of effective theft or crime operations against the trains and their cargo itself.
The Twitter thread here is strong evidence of a failure of that "no effective predators" requirement. Various supply-chain issues may be changing the calculus on long-distance freight operations and efficiency --- whether cargos decrease in quantity, in value, or in predictability, each of these would decrease operating efficiencies and opportunities. Containerisation is proving to be both a boon and a risk as well, by facilitating theft.
How challenging this might prove for railroads isn't clear, but I see a potentially large risk here.
As John Schreiber's thread notes, law enforcement for railroads is provided by the railroad companies themselves, in one of the first multi-jurisdictional police forces. Historically, railroad cops were more the scourge of hoboes and patrolled freight yards, but they might have to extend operations further if attacks such as these are increasing in frequency.
For those frustrated by Twitter's interface, Threadreader and Nitter links:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1481770722271760384.html
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/johnschreiber/status/148177072227...
See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-blue-whal...
Similar principles apply to human transportation modes. In particular, safety of routes, for passengers and cargo, is absolutely paramount, and there's little that kills traffic, whether terminal or through-passage, than increased risk.
For rail, the equivalents are continent-spanning cargo operations, efficient freight loading and unloading (particularly via intermodal containerised traffic), and a lack of effective theft or crime operations against the trains and their cargo itself.
The Twitter thread here is strong evidence of a failure of that "no effective predators" requirement. Various supply-chain issues may be changing the calculus on long-distance freight operations and efficiency --- whether cargos decrease in quantity, in value, or in predictability, each of these would decrease operating efficiencies and opportunities. Containerisation is proving to be both a boon and a risk as well, by facilitating theft.
How challenging this might prove for railroads isn't clear, but I see a potentially large risk here.
As John Schreiber's thread notes, law enforcement for railroads is provided by the railroad companies themselves, in one of the first multi-jurisdictional police forces. Historically, railroad cops were more the scourge of hoboes and patrolled freight yards, but they might have to extend operations further if attacks such as these are increasing in frequency.
For those frustrated by Twitter's interface, Threadreader and Nitter links:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1481770722271760384.html
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/johnschreiber/status/148177072227...
It also reminds me of certain episodes of the The History of Rome and The History of Byzantium podcasts where they depict the collapse of complex systems when the breakdown of security occurred.
During times when Roman security was good - the economy could develop complex systems of trade, which developed coinage, mathematics, architecture, and all sorts of specialists and artisans.
When security was no longer reliable due to the influx of raiders, piracy, and hoards of barbarians, all of those complex activities ceased.
The most complex aspects of society are always the first to collapse when security disappears.
...and eventually a "fend for yourself" attitude permeates society - which becomes a feedback loop, and it's no longer the externalities that are destroying security - but internal actors.
We were lucky to have a safe and stable society for so long that we are shocked to see mass looting. Once it's gone though, it is takes generations to rebuild that.
During times when Roman security was good - the economy could develop complex systems of trade, which developed coinage, mathematics, architecture, and all sorts of specialists and artisans.
When security was no longer reliable due to the influx of raiders, piracy, and hoards of barbarians, all of those complex activities ceased.
The most complex aspects of society are always the first to collapse when security disappears.
...and eventually a "fend for yourself" attitude permeates society - which becomes a feedback loop, and it's no longer the externalities that are destroying security - but internal actors.
We were lucky to have a safe and stable society for so long that we are shocked to see mass looting. Once it's gone though, it is takes generations to rebuild that.
Pretty much that.
For further parallels with Rome, I strongly advise Kyle Harper's The Fate of Rome, which develops the idea that empires and diseases co-evolve with one another. Another lesson from history which seems increasingly significant now.
For further parallels with Rome, I strongly advise Kyle Harper's The Fate of Rome, which develops the idea that empires and diseases co-evolve with one another. Another lesson from history which seems increasingly significant now.
> hoards of barbarians
you mean the citizens of neighbouring states (mainly nowadays france and germany) that refused to be colonized/enslaved?
you mean the citizens of neighbouring states (mainly nowadays france and germany) that refused to be colonized/enslaved?
Throughout most of history, any given culture was prone to call any surrounding culture "barbarians", or equivalent terms. The meaning was more akin to "foreigner", though there were also often connotations of ethnic or nationalistic superiority.
This was the case amongst the Romans, previously the Greeks, also Persians and other tribes and cultures of the Middle East / Western Asia. And similarly in China.
Nationalistic identity and senses of superiorty may be wholly unjustified on factual basis, and I tend to think that they are unjustified myself. They're also highly prevalent across times and cultures until quite recent times.
This was the case amongst the Romans, previously the Greeks, also Persians and other tribes and cultures of the Middle East / Western Asia. And similarly in China.
Nationalistic identity and senses of superiorty may be wholly unjustified on factual basis, and I tend to think that they are unjustified myself. They're also highly prevalent across times and cultures until quite recent times.
This is only partially accurate. The Romans and Persian, for example, did not consider the other, barbarians. Same between the Greeks/Egyptians/Carthaginians/Jews/etc...
What defined a "barbarian" group was that they we undeveloped scattered tribes - without central political power. They usually lacked written codified laws, formal political assembly, ambassadors, etc...
The Gauls, the Celts, the Germanic tribes, the Turkic tribes, etc... They all were considered "barbarians" because of their tribal community focused political structure. Few centralized buildings existed, lower literacy rates, etc...
These differences were very apparent when a soldier would leave from Rome or Constantinople, and then find himself conquering a Gaulic settlement where the biggest buildings were still made of wood.
Of course, as the centuries went on, these tribal communities became more and more centralize and organized until those differences disappeared.
What defined a "barbarian" group was that they we undeveloped scattered tribes - without central political power. They usually lacked written codified laws, formal political assembly, ambassadors, etc...
The Gauls, the Celts, the Germanic tribes, the Turkic tribes, etc... They all were considered "barbarians" because of their tribal community focused political structure. Few centralized buildings existed, lower literacy rates, etc...
These differences were very apparent when a soldier would leave from Rome or Constantinople, and then find himself conquering a Gaulic settlement where the biggest buildings were still made of wood.
Of course, as the centuries went on, these tribal communities became more and more centralize and organized until those differences disappeared.
The Greeks used the term barbarian for all non-Greek-speaking peoples, including the Egyptians, Persians, Medes and Phoenicians, emphasizing their otherness. According to Greek writers, this was because the language they spoke sounded to Greeks like gibberish represented by the sounds "bar..bar..;" the alleged root of the word βάρβαρος, which is an echomimetic or onomatopoeic word. In various occasions, the term was also used by Greeks, especially the Athenians, to deride other Greek tribes and states (such as Epirotes, Eleans, Macedonians, Boeotians and Aeolic-speakers) and also fellow Athenians in a pejorative and politically motivated manner.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian
[deleted]
Except for the “citizens” and the “states” bits and quite often without the “neighbouring” or the “colonized/enslaves” aspects either.
No, I mean literally hoards of barbarians from as far away as East of the Ural mountains.
The Huns, for example, were not neighboring peoples. They were hoards of horse archers that came from, literally, a thousand miles beyond the Roman border to pillage.
Their destruction of the Roman borders is what drove other Germanic tribes to flee west, further destroying Roman stability.
The Huns, for example, were not neighboring peoples. They were hoards of horse archers that came from, literally, a thousand miles beyond the Roman border to pillage.
Their destruction of the Roman borders is what drove other Germanic tribes to flee west, further destroying Roman stability.
Citizen in Roman times meant something else than today. Also barbarians (Visigoths) ransacked Rome in 410.
IIRC, the earliest Rus strong men were Vikings bought off by Byzantine emperors, changing them from raiders into gatekeepers.
Yes, they were known as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard
Wonder how organized that looting is. Is just individuals over many months or years, or a large gang over a few weeks time.
On the one hand it’s shocking to see it in LA in US. On the other I am surprised it’s not happening more often.
In large cities, some of my acquaintances had to get PO boxes as their packages kept getting stolen. But why bother wasting time going house to house, when you can hit a whole train car at once.
On the one hand it’s shocking to see it in LA in US. On the other I am surprised it’s not happening more often.
In large cities, some of my acquaintances had to get PO boxes as their packages kept getting stolen. But why bother wasting time going house to house, when you can hit a whole train car at once.
The thread notes that the area had been cleaned up 30 days ago. So the litter is from very recent and regular activity.
It seems pretty organized on the backend distribution. [1]
"Video from a police stakeout shows Drago unloading trunkloads full of merchandise at one of his warehouses — mouthwash, cleaning supplies, shampoo, foot spray, over-the-counter medicine, and more than $1 million dollars worth of razors. Drago allegedly directs the boosters to steal small, compact items, with long expiration dates, and high resale value."
To add another dimension of irony if there's a similar pattern to the CVS/Walgreens shoplifting distribution mechanisms - the main distribution back into the system is Amazon and E-bay, etc.
"The stolen goods eventually find their way to Ebay, Craigslist, Facebook Marketplace, and Amazon, where they are sold at a steep discount. Dugan says there’s a big societal cost to saving a few bucks."
So in this case, Amazon stuff is getting pilfered only to back into Amazon to be sold as Amazon marketplace items - no questions asked.
[1] https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/10/06/major-san-franc...
"Video from a police stakeout shows Drago unloading trunkloads full of merchandise at one of his warehouses — mouthwash, cleaning supplies, shampoo, foot spray, over-the-counter medicine, and more than $1 million dollars worth of razors. Drago allegedly directs the boosters to steal small, compact items, with long expiration dates, and high resale value."
To add another dimension of irony if there's a similar pattern to the CVS/Walgreens shoplifting distribution mechanisms - the main distribution back into the system is Amazon and E-bay, etc.
"The stolen goods eventually find their way to Ebay, Craigslist, Facebook Marketplace, and Amazon, where they are sold at a steep discount. Dugan says there’s a big societal cost to saving a few bucks."
So in this case, Amazon stuff is getting pilfered only to back into Amazon to be sold as Amazon marketplace items - no questions asked.
[1] https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/10/06/major-san-franc...
When I was in jail I met dozens of people who have done this. None of it was organized that I was aware of, it was just opportunistic. Some friends would get together and say "Let's go wait for a train and bust open some containers." There are literally thousands of places where it is possible to do this.
When I was a kid, the train conductors would shoot salt rounds at us from their shotguns. I guess that's not the case anymore?
They do not. Also as the industry has moved toward Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR) which allows for running trains that are much much longer than they used to be (up to 2 miles+) with much less staffing. So even if there was someone to do this (and there isn't; conductors are busy with other things), they'll have a lot of train to cover.
But if it’s so simple, how does it not become competitive? And if it’s so opportunistic, how does it not become organized?
Excellent questions. Perhaps because the people were in jail with me and were clearly regularly getting caught and prosecuted led to any fledgling ideas of organization being disrupted?
There is almost certainly an organized crime element interacting with the individuals performing the looting. Typically, the organized elements are at the "fencing" level, where they are paying the individuals (almost certainly mostly drug addicts) small fractions of the resale value for various items in cash/drugs.
This is a standard pattern in areas with lax law enforcement, which these days is all of California, and also places like Manhattan. Political leaders in the LA, SF, Manhattan areas have bought into the Bolshevik era explanation of crime being caused by social injustice, and therefore see criminals as victims of a corrupt society rife with inequality. This kind of chaos is an inevitable result. Treating criminals like hapless victims acting out of desperation ignores the fact that many have agency, are intelligent, and make cost/benefit calculations that completely change when they know they won't get prosecuted if they are caught.
This is a standard pattern in areas with lax law enforcement, which these days is all of California, and also places like Manhattan. Political leaders in the LA, SF, Manhattan areas have bought into the Bolshevik era explanation of crime being caused by social injustice, and therefore see criminals as victims of a corrupt society rife with inequality. This kind of chaos is an inevitable result. Treating criminals like hapless victims acting out of desperation ignores the fact that many have agency, are intelligent, and make cost/benefit calculations that completely change when they know they won't get prosecuted if they are caught.
I wonder if it's organized or just like kids in a candy store. There's so much to steal, I wonder if there's need for conflict or management.
I can see that, yeah. I imagine them, after all the adrenaline dies down, sitting around the fire, swapping stories and bartering —- “two epi pens for that golf club?”. Some staring into the distance, wondering about their life choices after ending up with four
identical waffle makers.
Both, probably.
I was wondering the same thing about seeing the aerial footage in the Twitter thread.
I don’t even know that amount of stuff could be opened, filtered for valuables, and transported within a few hours time without dozens of people and some mid-size cargo trucks.
This seems like enough organized logistic planning that a bunch of homeless people or youth gangs would not be able to pull off at this level.
I don’t even know that amount of stuff could be opened, filtered for valuables, and transported within a few hours time without dozens of people and some mid-size cargo trucks.
This seems like enough organized logistic planning that a bunch of homeless people or youth gangs would not be able to pull off at this level.
It’s minimally above bike theft. Same tools. If the train goes slow enough/stops, start cracking open containers and throw as much on the ground as you can while you can.
Then sift through it for the next hours.
Then sift through it for the next hours.
It’s not the LAPD’s role to get involved with this, but instead this responsibility falls upon special agents dedicated to these train lines. Their HQ is in Omaha Nebraska.
Does LAPD have zero jurisdiction on rail lines that have their own private police?
Or is it a case of “well, someone else could deal with it, so we’re out”?
Or is it a case of “well, someone else could deal with it, so we’re out”?
In California, all peace officers have statewide authority, but generally won't be tasked with action outside of where there agency has primary responsibility, except for pursuit or formally-requested mutual aid.
What's old is new again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_robbery
Also: 22 Are Arrested in Thefts Of Kennedy Airport Cargo
https://archive.is/F6QPf
Those trains must be stalled there for long periods of time. I can't imagine they're robbing moving trains, but I could be wrong as thieves often prove to be very resourceful
https://archive.is/F6QPf
Those trains must be stalled there for long periods of time. I can't imagine they're robbing moving trains, but I could be wrong as thieves often prove to be very resourceful
I don't really understand what is happening here. Why is the ground completely covered in packages? Do thieves just break into the passing train compartments and start throwing out packages?
The trains are forced to stop at this accessible location sometimes, just outside the rail yard. They don’t stop for long, so the strategy is to hop on, cut a container open, and throw as much stuff to the ground as you can before the train starts moving again. Then you hop down and look through your spoils for items of value.
Hint: look for “lithium ion battery device inside” warning labels.
Hint: look for “lithium ion battery device inside” warning labels.
So if the train cars, or the containers thee packages are kept in within the train cars, were at least so secure that they prevented access for say an hour or two, then this likely wouldn't happen?
What is this, open crates or sacks of packages, in traincars locked with a small padlock?
What is this, open crates or sacks of packages, in traincars locked with a small padlock?
A battery-powered bolt cutter is pretty powerful. Containers are no bank safes because that would make them too heavy and most places are not as lawless as this.
Padlocks are easy to cut, a bigger padlock just needs a bigger tool. Some companies apparently start welding their containers shut, which raises the bar for thieves significantly (now they need a grinder and more time).
> What is this, open crates or sacks of packages, in traincars locked with a small padlock?
Yes, pretty much. Although in many cases it’s not even a padlock, just a tamper-evident seal device with a serial number matching the paperwork for that container:
https://shipped.com/img-parts/server/php/files/containers/sh...
For huge cargo firms handling tens of thousands of containers daily, padlocks can be problematic operationally and quite expensive.
Yes, pretty much. Although in many cases it’s not even a padlock, just a tamper-evident seal device with a serial number matching the paperwork for that container:
https://shipped.com/img-parts/server/php/files/containers/sh...
For huge cargo firms handling tens of thousands of containers daily, padlocks can be problematic operationally and quite expensive.
[deleted]
The trains come to a stop from time to time. They break in to a container and throw as much as they can to the ground before the train continues.
Once the train is moving again, they go through all the packages on the ground looking for things of value.
Once the train is moving again, they go through all the packages on the ground looking for things of value.
So the thieves just lurk around the area, waiting for trains to come to a pause, and then break open the containers, I guess the containers are not very secure? And there's minimal patrols? It just seems like extraordinary 'easy pickings'.
Turns out it's pretty tricky to make a padlock secure against bolt cutters. Of course improving the security of the lock would soon lead to thieves cutting off the locking bars on the container instead.
It doesn't have to be the lock that's secured. What about a hinge mechanism which takes a programmable amount of time to open the container door? If it takes 10 minutes for the door to open, the lock doesn't matter as much, since the thieves have a very limited amount of time before the trains start moving again, apparently.
Those are standardized containers standardized which are made in the millions as cheap as possible. That stuff needs to work, think of all the means of transport where it is used (vessels, trains, aircraft), be accessible for inspections (customs) and so on. The costs to secure and upgrade the containers for the whole system is probably a lot higher than accepting a small percentage of stolen parcel.
Way too complicated. Apparently shippers are opting to start just welding the door shut and unwelding it at the destination.
That sounds like it could be quite error prone. If it's electronic, what about power failures? If mechanical, sounds like lots of intricate machined parts which will wear down over time.
Time locks have been around for more than 100 years, I'm pretty confident that if something like this was desired by the powers that be, it would have been implemented. What I'm assuming is stopping it aren't the engineering challenges, but the fact that currently it's cheaper to let the thefts happen than it is to mitigate them.
I wonder what the cost of engineering secure containers would be vs. addressing the societal problems in the USA that lead to situations like this would be.
I guess you could apply some of the same solutions used in refrigerated shipping containers for power redundancy.
Containers are secure in the sense that you can tell when you receive them whether someone has been inside them (and had the opportunity to change their contents). They are not secure in the sense that they prevent people from entering them.
so .. tamper-evident but not tamper-proof?
Correct. I think the main reason is that this "security" is geared more around Customs & Border enforcement than anything else.
It helps with customs, but it's a big deal for private businesses too. Before containers, you effectively had to have one trusted person's eyes on the cargo at all time -- and still people along the way lightened the load as they handled the stuff. It was almost considered part of the compensation for a longshoreman.
With tamper-evident containers, you have a trusted person watch the container being loaded and locked, and then a trusted person watch as its unloaded at its final destination, and you don't have to care what happens at every point in between.
With tamper-evident containers, you have a trusted person watch the container being loaded and locked, and then a trusted person watch as its unloaded at its final destination, and you don't have to care what happens at every point in between.
Makes sense. 99% of what I know about container shipping comes from the movie Contraband and Season 2 of The Wire. ;)
Don't think you would want to be walking around with someone else's package. Taking just the item gives some plausible deniability and there is probably no way to find the actual package that an item was taken from at that scale.
They open things up, take what they want, and dispose of the rest.
This seems like a problem that armed guards would fix pretty quickly.
Maybe. Or you just up the stakes and now you have thieves with automatic weapons having a gunfight with the train guards.
The stakes remain unchanged, because the stakes are the packages.
Since there can't be that much profit in this activity, I think it's reasonable to assume that a lot of the people responsible are doing it just because it's easy.
Since there can't be that much profit in this activity, I think it's reasonable to assume that a lot of the people responsible are doing it just because it's easy.
Yeah, that's exactly what they do, and they open the packages right there on the side of the tracks and take anything that's valuable inside.
It is surreal to see this in a country where the police and “justice” system is extremely trigger happy and wants to lock everyone up for any reason they can get away with.
US is a big place. That means it's possible to get a steady stream of stories of innocent people getting arrested/killed by the police, and have jurisdictions that turn a blind eye to property crime.
It is funny to see comments like these in this thread. After the events of the last few years, I guess Americans are finding out what it is like to be Indian on the internet and having to defend every piece of crazy news about the country. Note, I am not advocating for news like this to not be published, just remember that countries without even a semblance of a free press are going to report a lot fewer of these.
They're two aspects of the exact same problem. Stopping and prosecuting real crime, while preserving the rights of the innocent, is a very difficult job. When police are criticized for failure in one aspect, they respond by closing ranks and doing even less of the other aspect. Criticize the level of crime and they respond by finding some easy targets to round up and pin charges on. Criticize their overreach, and they respond with a working strike and lawless police riots.
Succumbing to individual incentives, it's easier to focus on easier-to-handle perps and conduct organized militaryesque "operations"... just like it's easier to run roughshod over the rights of the accused by assuming they're guilty and doling out extrajudicial punishment. Neither one means doing their job better.
Ultimately it's a complete failure of accountability. Accountability of police organizations to their employers, the community, to effectively do what they are deputized to do. As well as the failure to bind police under the overarching law, both civil and criminal, like everyone else. The problem is not deep set and everywhere, but rather distributed because we're only seeing the cherry picked worst examples of both sides. But we need to seriously up our systems of accountability if anybody is going to have any faith in our institutions going forward.
Succumbing to individual incentives, it's easier to focus on easier-to-handle perps and conduct organized militaryesque "operations"... just like it's easier to run roughshod over the rights of the accused by assuming they're guilty and doling out extrajudicial punishment. Neither one means doing their job better.
Ultimately it's a complete failure of accountability. Accountability of police organizations to their employers, the community, to effectively do what they are deputized to do. As well as the failure to bind police under the overarching law, both civil and criminal, like everyone else. The problem is not deep set and everywhere, but rather distributed because we're only seeing the cherry picked worst examples of both sides. But we need to seriously up our systems of accountability if anybody is going to have any faith in our institutions going forward.
Soft on crime policies like restorative justice simply attract crime. No consequences means no deterrent. It’s not surprising this happens in LA -
George Gascon is the DA and he’s facing increasing support for his recall (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/liberal-beverly-hill...).
How the heck is crime attractive? Why are you not attracted to this crime? Why am I not attracted to it as I sit working from home for a tech company?
I don't think crime is attractive, it isn't something that people want to do in a developed society. There are plenty of crimes I can commits and get away with but I am not attracted to doing them.
I don't think crime is attractive, it isn't something that people want to do in a developed society. There are plenty of crimes I can commits and get away with but I am not attracted to doing them.
How do reconcile that view with this just... Not happening in other countries with much softer policing?
I’ve read that the magnitude of punishment has less of a deterrent effect on crime compared to the certainty of receiving punishment at all. Softer consequences that you will probably face, as in parts of Europe, are different from harder (on paper) consequences that you will likely escape under a progressive prosecutor in the US. See the Chicago, San Francisco, Milwaukee, and Baltimore DAs for examples of this.
Edit: And don’t confuse American police/law enforcement, who are often harsh to say the least, with the legal arm of the criminal justice system. In many US cities the two are often at odds, as lax prosecutors and DAs release criminals almost as soon as police apprehend them. The Washington DC Chief of Police in particular complained about this recently.
Edit: And don’t confuse American police/law enforcement, who are often harsh to say the least, with the legal arm of the criminal justice system. In many US cities the two are often at odds, as lax prosecutors and DAs release criminals almost as soon as police apprehend them. The Washington DC Chief of Police in particular complained about this recently.
This is not LAPD responsibility, and the HQ of the responsible force is in Omaha Nebraska.
If it isn't LA's responsibility why is Union Pacific asking LA's DA to stop releasing suspects who were arrested for theft? [1]
[1]:https://twitter.com/CBSLAKristine/status/1482115852216385538...
[1]:https://twitter.com/CBSLAKristine/status/1482115852216385538...
It's still a consequence of general lack of policing or soft policing. Whether this is LAPDs responsibility or not, the overall society and its view on crime like this is a huge component to this occurring. We can't have nice things if people are just going around and stealing because "hey it doesn't hurt anyone".
Are the police notoriously soft in other broken states like South Africa? I don't think so - the intensity of policing seems poorly correlated to outcomes to me.
I despair every day at America's descent into a failed state. Is no one watching?
I despair every day at America's descent into a failed state. Is no one watching?
[deleted]
Apparently this is under the jurisdiction of the railroad police, not LAPD. Not clear to me what jurisdiction that falls under but sounds like it might be federal.
How long before Amazon has their own containers with cameras and defense mechanisms?
Made me think of this horrible vision:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalhead_(Black_Mirror)
As soon as the shrinkage exceeds the cost of those security measures. Security is a business problem.
[deleted]
> Responsibility for policing the railroad right of way falls on Union Pacific Police... not local agencies like LAPD
So is 'Union Pacific Police' just a security company, or do you guys in the US actually have private businesses with their own police? Because that sounds pretty dystopian
So is 'Union Pacific Police' just a security company, or do you guys in the US actually have private businesses with their own police? Because that sounds pretty dystopian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police
Railroads emerged at a time when the only significant national law-enforcement entity would have been the military or US Marshall's service. (There were some customs and coast guard operations, also the postal police dating to 1772, before the United States declared their independence from England.)
Railroads operated across town or city, county, and state boundaries. They had a highly distinctive geography --- the linear alignment of tracks. And multi-jurisdictional law enforcement with competing interests would have been (and remains) problematic.
So railroads provided (or contracted, often through the infamous Pinkerton Agency) their own security serivce. Many railroad police have full law-enforcement police and arrest powers.
Note that there are other businesses and operations with some similar capabilities. A ship's captain traditionally had extraordinary powers when at sea, many hotels have or had house detectives, the US Postal Service as noted has its inspector service, and US Marshalls provide security aboard aircraft, though with partial coverage. Their presence and function received heightened awareness after the 9/11 attacks of 2001.
Railroads emerged at a time when the only significant national law-enforcement entity would have been the military or US Marshall's service. (There were some customs and coast guard operations, also the postal police dating to 1772, before the United States declared their independence from England.)
Railroads operated across town or city, county, and state boundaries. They had a highly distinctive geography --- the linear alignment of tracks. And multi-jurisdictional law enforcement with competing interests would have been (and remains) problematic.
So railroads provided (or contracted, often through the infamous Pinkerton Agency) their own security serivce. Many railroad police have full law-enforcement police and arrest powers.
Note that there are other businesses and operations with some similar capabilities. A ship's captain traditionally had extraordinary powers when at sea, many hotels have or had house detectives, the US Postal Service as noted has its inspector service, and US Marshalls provide security aboard aircraft, though with partial coverage. Their presence and function received heightened awareness after the 9/11 attacks of 2001.
> Railroad police are certified state law enforcement officers with investigative and arrest powers both on and off railroad property in most states. They also have interstate law enforcement authority pursuant to federal law.
> The railroad police force dates to the mid-1800s, when the number of U.S. Marshals was insufficient to police America's growing rail network. Members were called Pinkertons, named after their originator, Alan Pinkerton. Today, each Class I railroad employs Special Agents across the country to protect America’s rail network.
https://www.up.com/aboutup/community/safety/special_agents/i...
It's just police who are probably paid by that business. That makes sense to me for a large business like this. If anything they're not doing a good enough job here.
> The railroad police force dates to the mid-1800s, when the number of U.S. Marshals was insufficient to police America's growing rail network. Members were called Pinkertons, named after their originator, Alan Pinkerton. Today, each Class I railroad employs Special Agents across the country to protect America’s rail network.
https://www.up.com/aboutup/community/safety/special_agents/i...
It's just police who are probably paid by that business. That makes sense to me for a large business like this. If anything they're not doing a good enough job here.
Thanks for that. We have railroad police here in Australia as well, however it's all state government sponsored, I just hadn't heard of private enterprise funding police before.
We have them at colleges too. Sometimes you want full time real police who can send people to jail. I guess it depends on the environment and scale of crime to determine whether it's needed. If it is, then it may make sense to have the impacted business pay for it. Otherwise the city might not be able to commit enough resources.
Us and those wild Canadians up North too https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Pacific_Police_Serv....
It is crazy here, what can I tell ya ;-)
It is crazy here, what can I tell ya ;-)
Recall, if you will, that the rail lines are privately owned here. So you have privately owned trains, running on privately owned tracks that are on privately owned land ... it's not entirely clear what the legal framework for government police authority to take effect here is, at least not if you're concerned about the wierdness that would result from just saying "interstate commerce, put the FBI on it".
A state run police force I am forced to pay for that has qualified immunity sounds a lot more dystopian to me than a private security firm a company hires to protect its business infrastructure.
Funny I thought usually things feel more dystopian when the government is the one exerting the force or control. In this case it’s your perception that government law enforcement is routine where as private security firms are dystopian?
Lots of grey areas. But transportation and commerce affect everybody, and because there's big ticket issues at risk it becomes a political and practical priority.
Yes LA is a third world country, please leave.
Why is there not CCTV there? CCTV + police follow-up and arrests made seems like a good way to combat this (serious, economically damaging) situation.
You need a District Attorney willing to actively go after these kinds of suspects. In my experience the police don't really do anything about thefts unless they happen to catch the perpetrator in the act. My family had our car stolen from our driveway and they did virtually nothing to try and recover it. In fact, the only reason why we got it back was because the tweaker who stole it managed to park it in a reserved stall on private property and it was towed. The police said they swept the car for evidence, but we found multiple prescription bottles with the suspect's name on it in easy to reach places. The cops obviously missed this and refused to accept it as evidence. We did a LexisNexus search of the name on the bottle and lo-and-behold, multiple priors for armed robbery and auto theft. No charges were ever filed against the person.
So I have virtually no faith in security cameras. They do their jobs, but the DA certainly doesn't.
So I have virtually no faith in security cameras. They do their jobs, but the DA certainly doesn't.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you about the DA, but it seems like in your specific case the problem is more that the police themselves are acting indifferently.
CCTV in an age of universal and accepted mask-wearing is pretty ineffective. I have video of people breaking into my business and stealing five figures worth of goods a few years back with specific identification of them, forwarded to the police, who have done nothing with it. Non-violent crimes (specifically property damage or theft) just aren't prosecuted, especially on the west coast.
If you want video, here is one from the Chicago trainyard: https://twitter.com/ronmilnerboodle/status/14817774032529448...
Its not that this is hard or impossible to solve.
Its not that this is hard or impossible to solve.
It's LA, they don't care.
This seems like a crime that could be very easily stopped.
In USA, railroad police have jurisdiction in this scenario. Uniquely, in USA, railroad police are employed by the railroad.
As evidenced by current BNSF strike, USA railroads presently have a tough relationship with their labor force.
For an underpaid and overstressed railroad cop, do they want to risk their life to try to stop this? My guess is generally no. They may even desire a cut of the proceeds.
As evidenced by current BNSF strike, USA railroads presently have a tough relationship with their labor force.
For an underpaid and overstressed railroad cop, do they want to risk their life to try to stop this? My guess is generally no. They may even desire a cut of the proceeds.
>Uniquely, in USA, railroad police are employed by the railroad.
No, not uniquely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Police_(Poland) It's an unit managed by the rail track operator.
No, not uniquely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Police_(Poland) It's an unit managed by the rail track operator.
They are looking at 20 years if they get caught: 18 U.S. Code section 1991
Additionally they are releasing hazardous materials by breaking open boxes:
18 U.S. Code section 1992
Additionally they are releasing hazardous materials by breaking open boxes:
18 U.S. Code section 1992
> They are looking at 20 years if they get caught: 18 U.S. Code section 1991
likely not, see https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...
likely not, see https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...
It leaves out the important information, what does whale sushi taste like. Interesting to know, though these inconsistencies between cases, and time seem rife for popularity and crony "justice". We like group X so they get 6 months we hate group Y so 20 years for them. There is a reason I became a programmer not a lawyer. Deterministic code is easier than subjective rulings at least for me.
>these inconsistencies between cases, and time seem rife for popularity and crony "justice".
The sentencing guidelines I mentioned seems specifically designed to mitigate this issue?
>We like group X so they get 6 months we hate group Y so 20 years for them. There is a reason I became a programmer not a lawyer. Deterministic code is easier than subjective rulings at least for me.
The sentencing guidelines seem pretty deterministic to me. There's a bunch of factors. The factors add up to a certain amount of points, and the amount of points determines your sentence to within a fairly narrow band. It's certainly not the "6 months for one group and 20 years for another group" that you talk about.
The sentencing guidelines I mentioned seems specifically designed to mitigate this issue?
>We like group X so they get 6 months we hate group Y so 20 years for them. There is a reason I became a programmer not a lawyer. Deterministic code is easier than subjective rulings at least for me.
The sentencing guidelines seem pretty deterministic to me. There's a bunch of factors. The factors add up to a certain amount of points, and the amount of points determines your sentence to within a fairly narrow band. It's certainly not the "6 months for one group and 20 years for another group" that you talk about.
Serious question: Have they not thought of mounting Mark Rober-style devices on each freight car that releases some combination of {glitter, fart spray, honey, glue, itch powder, pepper spray, ink}?
It might sound funny but I think the sheer discomfort would deter thieves in an instant, and they would be easy to identify for several days.
A device of this sort would be super useful for car thieves as well.
It might sound funny but I think the sheer discomfort would deter thieves in an instant, and they would be easy to identify for several days.
A device of this sort would be super useful for car thieves as well.
At the risk of sounding like a Reddit comment - I came here for this comment!
Amazon has already started doing their own shipping. Maybe they'll hire their own mercenaries to guard the shipments too. Eventually they'll replace the government. United States of Amazon. We won't even have to change all our monogrammed stuff.
Snow Crash is looking more and more likely.
You are describing the rise of the East India Company!
You might want to look at their flag - might seem oddly familiar.
poor ppl getting shot by underpaid security for trying to steal a box of stupid stuff which the rich kids that ordered it have already forgotten about ...
can totally see this dystopia
can totally see this dystopia
if they do it the way they did AWS it'll be amazing
Like 'I would like 1 minute of private security while I walk up this alley'? 'How many times can I walk it on the free tier?'
Until you forget to dismiss your security detail and get a 600k$ charge on your AmazoCard at the end of the month.
Makes me wonder what the equivalent to the free micro instance would be.
I know folks building their data centers around the DC/VA region and I hear funny things.
Mercenaries? I doubt it. Cheap rent-a-cops to burn in a hire & fire way, like their fulfilment center slaves seems more likely.
Which after a while leads to enough people knowing about their ways, and enables easy sabotage :-)
Which after a while leads to enough people knowing about their ways, and enables easy sabotage :-)
[deleted]
How about putting something like an electrical fence around those containers, maybe even just one or two wires, focused on the parts where they get opened. They could also signal when a container has been opened if should they get cut.
Containers are metal. Just electrify the whole thing!
I wonder how many of these items are being resold on Amazon and Walmart Marketplace.
It's all very well organized. The initial thieves operate in gangs that pull as much off the train as possible and throw it to the ground.
The collectors below look for (ie. boxes that have a lithium/ion battery warning on them), and they break open those boxes and remove those goods.
Those high value goods are then sold to a fencer who will list them online as new from a 3rd party seller.
The remaining lower value goods are then picked over by other community members.
The collectors below look for (ie. boxes that have a lithium/ion battery warning on them), and they break open those boxes and remove those goods.
Those high value goods are then sold to a fencer who will list them online as new from a 3rd party seller.
The remaining lower value goods are then picked over by other community members.
This is probably one of the most civilized ways to steal something. It hurts no one and is just a non-discriminatory tax on pretty much everyone in LA since most people order Amazon packages. I think of this like click fraud, a while ago Google decided to stop combatting it and just "let it happen" [1].
It turned out to be a winning strategy.
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-ceo-on-click-fraud-let-...
It turned out to be a winning strategy.
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-ceo-on-click-fraud-let-...
> It hurts no one
Unless of course one of the boxes had something like epi-pens or insulin or some other medical supplies of course.
Unless of course one of the boxes had something like epi-pens or insulin or some other medical supplies of course.
By that logic carrying a bag of nails should be a crime since you might inadvertently drop one on a public road where a UPS truck might get a flat tire and as a result not be able to deliver someone's insulin.
Crime requires: means, motive, opportunity
The motive for crime is always present, and is mostly held in check by keeping the cost of means and opportunity high.
In this case the opportunity cost is very low. The trains are just sitting there unprotected.
And the means - will just grab a crow bar.
EDIT:
This regulation is well intentioned:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/28101
The good intention is to allow interstate policing of the railsystem. The bad effect is to prevent local law enforcement 'interference'.
The motive for crime is always present, and is mostly held in check by keeping the cost of means and opportunity high.
In this case the opportunity cost is very low. The trains are just sitting there unprotected.
And the means - will just grab a crow bar.
EDIT:
This regulation is well intentioned:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/28101
The good intention is to allow interstate policing of the railsystem. The bad effect is to prevent local law enforcement 'interference'.
Please wear one-use gloves when rummaging around in trash? Please? For me?
That's one of the main reasons why driverless lorries will never be a thing. Unless you accompany each one of them by a weaponised mini-drone, Robocop-style, that is.
What difference would a driver do? A driver is instructed to not interefere if robbed. The difference I suppose is that what would otherwise be a robbery could be a mere burglary which could have less legal risk as well as less risk of violence (In the case a driver interferes, against his instructions)
It won't be just "one" driver, it would more of them, as in the lorries are usually stopped where other lorries are also stopped (at lorry-specific parking spots, for example) and as such it would be harder for the robbers to confront an "united" (for lack of a better word) pack of drivers. Granted, robberies (and even murders [1]) still happen in those circumstances, too, but give the robbers unattended merchandise sitting by the roadside and then see what will happen.
[1] https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/externe/mapamond/au-fost-arestat...
[1] https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/externe/mapamond/au-fost-arestat...
I think the deterrence from human drivers comes probably (hopefully) more from the risk of being detected, than from the risk of being stopped. Self driving vehicles would of course lack the human element. But on the other hand - they might not need to stop for rest like human drivers do.
That's more for the driver's own safety, as the burglars could have lethal weapons.
If it were autonomous it could defend itself and its contents without risk to humans. At the very least with fart spray, pepper spray, itch powder, and the like.
If it were autonomous it could defend itself and its contents without risk to humans. At the very least with fart spray, pepper spray, itch powder, and the like.
But it doesn't stop us from using trains that get broken into? I doubt it is an important reason. Plus, driverless lorry can just keep on driving to their destination or a safe refueling yard.
Nah. Train robberies have been a thing since shortly after trains were invented, no matter if staff or sometimes even armed guards were present on board.
*in America. Not a reason why they shouldn’t work in Japan, Switzerland, Norway…
Well this explains where my Amazon packages keep going.
Huh, I just had a lost Amazon package last week, shipped by UPS. It disappeared somewhere on the way from Nebraska to California.
[deleted]
Yeah but it is the domestic extremist terrorism that is the real threat to its citizen. Got it.
Over the past several months I have had more delivery problems with Amazon than ever. Things scheduled, out for delivery, and sometimes ten spots away on a map, just seem to disappear. I wonder if these (and similar) thefts have anything to do with it.
[deleted]
Where's E. H. Harriman now that we need him?
"Air tag" like trackers on decoy packages mixed in might be a cheap solution to this issue.
They don't really disincentive the behaviour though. Dye packs are a thing, people still rob banks.
People who feel they have nothing to lose don't care if they get caught either.
The solution is to provide people with a decent life by default. They can then contribute to society comfortably.
People who feel they have nothing to lose don't care if they get caught either.
The solution is to provide people with a decent life by default. They can then contribute to society comfortably.
But if we simply take away consequence now no one has any reason not to steal, and then more people will steal. It may not deter all people but fewer people will be willing to gamble if the odds of facing consequences go up.
The alternative is to view it as inevitable and therefore don't do anything, but then those not doing it fall behind those doing it and suddenly those who weren't stealing before now feel like losers for not doing it because no one was facing any consequences and because they held back they are now worse off.
The alternative is to view it as inevitable and therefore don't do anything, but then those not doing it fall behind those doing it and suddenly those who weren't stealing before now feel like losers for not doing it because no one was facing any consequences and because they held back they are now worse off.
I see a lot of people talking about "packages", but UPS/Fedex/USPS don't use trains because they're too slow, right? I assume we're talking about wholesale shipping here.
Anything with lithium-ion battery can’t be shipped via air due to FAA regulations.
So, laptops and phones all travel on trains and trucks. Will big helpful warning labels as well.
So, laptops and phones all travel on trains and trucks. Will big helpful warning labels as well.
Ground shipping in the US often goes by train when it has to cross the country, its cheap and fuel efficient.
The backing track to this post is Delicate Tendrils.
Sigh - Any resourced and competent police or security force should be able to catch or deter thieves that are stealing packages from the same location. Additionally, mail theft laws which include prison as a consequence should be extended to package thefts if they don't already cover them.
The agency with jurisdiction here appears to be a private police force: the Union Pacific Police (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pacific_Police_Departmen...).
So their resourcing wouldn't take into account wider societal benefits from lower crime - it'd be more about the direct costs and benefits to the business.
So their resourcing wouldn't take into account wider societal benefits from lower crime - it'd be more about the direct costs and benefits to the business.
> it'd be more about the direct costs and benefits to the business.
... which are tied to lowering crime.
... which are tied to lowering crime.
Perhaps America should be looking at reducing the causes of what leads people to needing to be thieves, rather than catching them and putting them into the justice system (which has many systemic issues itself)
As a technical comparison; if you have a system that is creating a bug then it seems an incorrect stopgap solution to invest in support resources to handle user complaints rather than development and QA resources to reduce the chances of users running into the bug.
As a technical comparison; if you have a system that is creating a bug then it seems an incorrect stopgap solution to invest in support resources to handle user complaints rather than development and QA resources to reduce the chances of users running into the bug.
Why help poor people when you can catch criminals instead?
> Additionally, mail theft laws which include prison as a consequence should be extended to package thefts if they don't already cover them.
But it is a nonviolent crime. It seems like finding some way to prevent the thefts is better.
But it is a nonviolent crime. It seems like finding some way to prevent the thefts is better.
I think putting the criminals in prisons for a long time, and the threat of the criminals being caught, is already a good way to prevent thefts.
I think putting people away for a longer time doesn't help much. You need to focus on probability of being caught (by which I mean at least arrested, not chased away).
A horrible way to prevent theft. Statistically a great way to create career criminals, break up families, and all the side effects that comes with (like more criminals).
People who break into containers as shown here have no excuses and are already career criminals.
Do they deserve a (potentially harsh) punishment? Yes.
But is it in society's interest not to make them worse than they already are? Also, yes.
So a problem in most countries is that prison is only focused on the punishment part not on the "what happens when people are released?" part.
Do they deserve a (potentially harsh) punishment? Yes.
But is it in society's interest not to make them worse than they already are? Also, yes.
So a problem in most countries is that prison is only focused on the punishment part not on the "what happens when people are released?" part.
I think correct way is to punish relatively harshly(few months to years depending on amount), but also remove secondary effects. Like ban employers from asking about felonies unless they are dealing with minors or for example with fraud with financial positions. Do that and the person reports automatic payment of few months of wages.
Now some of the offenders might have chance to integrate back to society...
Now some of the offenders might have chance to integrate back to society...
But this attitude leads to the current situation, where the criminals face minimal risk, the deterrent factor of harsh punishments isn't there.
Are they stealing because they're criminals or are they criminals because they're stealing?
Or are they just opportunists, even if somewhat organised, stealing simply because they know they're likely to get away with it? Not doing it not out of any real need, but just for the thrill of it, or as a 'fuck you' to authority, whether that's the police, the politicians, or big business.
When people can shoplift bagloads of merchandise without even trying to be stealthy, then casually walk out past a security guard who isn't allowed to do anything, or when they can smash a window and clean out a store under the cover of protests/unrest, it's not surprising that it escalates to more organised theft - whether it's 'flash rob' looting* of stores, or now looting train cargo.
(*As for the now-seemingly-controversial term 'looting' vs stealing/theft/robbery - to me, looting is brazenly grabbing anything/everything, out in the open, often in broad daylight and on camera, while most 'normal' forms of theft are carried out more covertly and perhaps with particular targets in mind). No amount of policing will prevent all theft, but open looting is an sign of lawlessness.
When people can shoplift bagloads of merchandise without even trying to be stealthy, then casually walk out past a security guard who isn't allowed to do anything, or when they can smash a window and clean out a store under the cover of protests/unrest, it's not surprising that it escalates to more organised theft - whether it's 'flash rob' looting* of stores, or now looting train cargo.
(*As for the now-seemingly-controversial term 'looting' vs stealing/theft/robbery - to me, looting is brazenly grabbing anything/everything, out in the open, often in broad daylight and on camera, while most 'normal' forms of theft are carried out more covertly and perhaps with particular targets in mind). No amount of policing will prevent all theft, but open looting is an sign of lawlessness.
Only the criminal can answer that, I suppose. Has it occurred to anyone to ask?
I think the answer is in the action.
It's easier for techy types to gaff at the risk of highway robbery for a good reason.
Tech seeks to alleviate human labor via automation or semi-automation.
I think people are trying to take the same shortcuts to reduce the friction of human labor. Thievery is a foundational American ideal, romanticized in some sense.
The question most US citizens have been asking is "when do I get mine?".
I think they're finding their own answers.
It's easier for techy types to gaff at the risk of highway robbery for a good reason.
Tech seeks to alleviate human labor via automation or semi-automation.
I think people are trying to take the same shortcuts to reduce the friction of human labor. Thievery is a foundational American ideal, romanticized in some sense.
The question most US citizens have been asking is "when do I get mine?".
I think they're finding their own answers.
[deleted]
> it is a nonviolent crime
This doesn't really mean anything. Non-violent crimes range from personal drug use & speeding to ponzi schemes & drunk driving.
There is a difference between theft (a victim exists and can inflict either physical or emotional damage) and something like personal light drug use (mostly victimless).
Theft not only robs a victim of their time & resource but it can also inflict emotional damage. A broken car window means you're out whatever they stole + glass (often a week or more of wages) and the emotional stress & time to fix it. These packages had recipients - the PPE is obviously important but each of these packages could have been someones anniversary gift or important medical device.
If we're talking about the moral severity of the crime itself, theft is pretty close to assault in my book and should be punished accordingly.
We can work on preventing the desperateness that leads to theft while still having strict punishment. What we shouldn't do is not address the root cause AND let such crimes go essentially unpunished.
This doesn't really mean anything. Non-violent crimes range from personal drug use & speeding to ponzi schemes & drunk driving.
There is a difference between theft (a victim exists and can inflict either physical or emotional damage) and something like personal light drug use (mostly victimless).
Theft not only robs a victim of their time & resource but it can also inflict emotional damage. A broken car window means you're out whatever they stole + glass (often a week or more of wages) and the emotional stress & time to fix it. These packages had recipients - the PPE is obviously important but each of these packages could have been someones anniversary gift or important medical device.
If we're talking about the moral severity of the crime itself, theft is pretty close to assault in my book and should be punished accordingly.
We can work on preventing the desperateness that leads to theft while still having strict punishment. What we shouldn't do is not address the root cause AND let such crimes go essentially unpunished.
> It seems like finding some way to prevent the thefts is better.
It seems like it should be possible to use locks which are harder to open in a short amount of time...but I suppose the cost of that would outweigh the current costs of the theft for the railroads.
It seems like it should be possible to use locks which are harder to open in a short amount of time...but I suppose the cost of that would outweigh the current costs of the theft for the railroads.
It's very difficult to make a lock that is really secure. Bolt cutters and battery powered saws / grinders are very powerful, portable and effective tools to cut through metal.
Average time needed to get into a container (X) needs to be > average time train pauses (Y). This seems like it should be a solvable problem.
For example, just thinking out loud, what about some sort of container door hinge mechanism which takes five minutes (or an adjustable amount of time) to open the door?
For example, just thinking out loud, what about some sort of container door hinge mechanism which takes five minutes (or an adjustable amount of time) to open the door?
Screw it. This notion that we should only punish violent crime, and all other crime should be ignored needs to go. Look at this chain of logic presented above.
>> Additionally, mail theft laws which include prison as a consequence should be extended to package thefts if they don't already cover them.
>But it is a nonviolent crime. It seems like finding some way to prevent the thefts is better.
The implied conclusion here is "We're allowing it if people don't guard it like it's ft Knox."
The whole point of a legal system, the codification of crime and law enforcement is to stop things like this. To ensure that people cannot unilaterally and directly harm other people.
>> Additionally, mail theft laws which include prison as a consequence should be extended to package thefts if they don't already cover them.
>But it is a nonviolent crime. It seems like finding some way to prevent the thefts is better.
The implied conclusion here is "We're allowing it if people don't guard it like it's ft Knox."
The whole point of a legal system, the codification of crime and law enforcement is to stop things like this. To ensure that people cannot unilaterally and directly harm other people.
[deleted]
> unilaterally and directly harm other people.
Which is precisely what "punishment" does. Try being less vindictive and more understanding about the root circumstances that lead someone to perform an act of desperation.
Which is precisely what "punishment" does. Try being less vindictive and more understanding about the root circumstances that lead someone to perform an act of desperation.
Nope. The criminal is the one who needs to realize and internalise his desperation, and move on to a better life. Everyone has needs, get in line sunshine.
> and move on to a better life
That's exactly what is being attempted via the theft.
That's exactly what is being attempted via the theft.
Obviously theft is not a long-term solution. Being a lowlife is no way to live. There are people working the skin off their bones on two jobs just to barely live. And some entitled shmuck wants the easy way out?
Not to meander too much, but I think this is a genuinely interesting question. Is theft the 'easy way out'? I'm not so sure. It's a job like any other, requiring skill to be successful, and comes with a slew of stressors that are non-issues in legal jobs, like the risk of apprehension for starters. The higher risk may also at times yield higher reward, but I wouldn't say necessarily 'easier'. I think showing up for a generic 9-to-5 is significantly easier than robbing trains successfully.
How is stealing electronics and covid tests an act of desperation? They are not stealing food and hygiene products, right?
The containers don't have big signs telling them which ones to steal for the food and which ones to ignore because they only contain TVs and covid tests.
If you are desperate, you steal anything and try to sell it to buy food and hygiene products.
If you are desperate, you steal anything and try to sell it to buy food and hygiene products.
Presumably they aren't stealing electronics because their old phone is due an upgrade, though.
1. Statistics show that crime levels strongly correlate with economic inequality
2. ?
3. Most criminals are just poor people scraping by using the only means available to them; veritable street kids stealing a loaf of bread
Honestly, I don't understand this logic at all. Specifically, how people arrive at #3.
2. ?
3. Most criminals are just poor people scraping by using the only means available to them; veritable street kids stealing a loaf of bread
Honestly, I don't understand this logic at all. Specifically, how people arrive at #3.
No, punishment is not unilateral, it’s right there in the word definition.
I would be extremely interested in what definition of punishment you are using where punishment is defined as not being unilateral, which would mean it's some sort of bilateral punishment with consent of the punished party?
Not much within reason that you can do to stop a portable oxy torch, and the train doesn't need to be stopped, they just need to hop on and off at the right times. People hop moving trains all the time. All you're doing is shifting the numbers around in the same equation.
But I think the bigger issue is just that you're talking about retrofitting an aspect of the global transport complex. Why would the entire shipping industry change it's approach to standardized containers just to stop some thieves at a specific American spot? The cost of using special containers for this specific route would be prohibitive I imagine, and hard to manage the logistics of.
But I think the bigger issue is just that you're talking about retrofitting an aspect of the global transport complex. Why would the entire shipping industry change it's approach to standardized containers just to stop some thieves at a specific American spot? The cost of using special containers for this specific route would be prohibitive I imagine, and hard to manage the logistics of.
Let me introduce you to 12" hydraulic bolt cutters. They cut through the toughest bike U-locks. No lock survives them. If the lock is stronger, there are stronger hydraulic cutters. Containers tend to be protected by puck-style locks. There are specialized hydraulic tools for defeating those also. There are also, of course, blowtorches.
The only solution is armed escort for trains through slow zones.
The only solution is armed escort for trains through slow zones.
If the locks are sufficiently armoured, thieves will simply defeat hinges or latches, or go straight through the sides of boxes.
Weakest point of entry.
Weakest point of entry.
I disagree. If you prevent this one, some people will stop, whilst others will just find something else to steal elsewhere. It's like a big game of wack-a-mole.
I'd much rather we arrest them so they can be rehabilitated or helped. Which is a separate discussion, but there have to be consequences. Sometimes it's too late to help them and we just need to stem the damage they do to society and other people that are innocent.
I'd much rather we arrest them so they can be rehabilitated or helped. Which is a separate discussion, but there have to be consequences. Sometimes it's too late to help them and we just need to stem the damage they do to society and other people that are innocent.
> I'd much rather we arrest them so they can be rehabilitated or helped.
This is not what happens when people are arrested.
This is not what happens when people are arrested.
That's why OP said:
> Which is a separate discussion
Cool, so wage theft is a nonviolent crime as well, hence by your logic it should go unpunished as well
Wage theft is very violent.
I'm not so sure with the contents of some of the boxes being COVID tests or EpiPens if it can truly be considered "non-violent".
Fortunately, medicines shipped by specialty / remote pharmacies typically don't often go by train, as they need relatively climate controlled environments (above freezing, under a certain amount, etc).
That said, steal the shots I take for an autoimmune disorder and I'll definitely consider it an assault on my health.
That said, steal the shots I take for an autoimmune disorder and I'll definitely consider it an assault on my health.
In the US, stealing Epipens and selling them on the black market makes them more accessible compared to than forcing people to pay the retail price. The manufacturer can always make more - they could accept 90% losses due to theft and still sell them profitably, based on the prices they offer in other countries [0].
So if you're going to play the "assault on my health" card, the guys robbing trains are literally Robin Hood saving lives.
Yeah, it introduces some problems around chain of custody, counterfeiting...but people who can afford the $300 can continue to pay the retail price.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mylan-nl-pfizer-epipen-id...
So if you're going to play the "assault on my health" card, the guys robbing trains are literally Robin Hood saving lives.
Yeah, it introduces some problems around chain of custody, counterfeiting...but people who can afford the $300 can continue to pay the retail price.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mylan-nl-pfizer-epipen-id...
That's real noble, but the issue I'm on about isn't the price, that's its own can of worms and something for you lot to deal with in the US.
Disruption to medicine supply is my concern here, having had supply issues affect a family member where they've had to ration out heart related medication... I'm a little tetchy about it.
Disruption to medicine supply is my concern here, having had supply issues affect a family member where they've had to ration out heart related medication... I'm a little tetchy about it.
This is cute and all, but generic versions are available for much less than that, goodrx and co offer steep discounts on the brand name, and Medicaid pays for it entirely with no co-pay.
If you want to continue the robin hood analogy, well, Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. He wasn't selling life saving medicines that may or may not be fake (buyers won't know either way), and may have been improperly handled or stored.
He wasn't potentially killing people who just want to save a few bucks.
If you want to continue the robin hood analogy, well, Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. He wasn't selling life saving medicines that may or may not be fake (buyers won't know either way), and may have been improperly handled or stored.
He wasn't potentially killing people who just want to save a few bucks.
That’s ridiculous. You think someone is going to buy an Epi-pen off some random dude on the street?
Easier to just go to the ER and not pay the bill.
Easier to just go to the ER and not pay the bill.
I'd certainly consider buying a stolen/black market/grey market EpiPen at $300 if I needed one and the alternative cost $3000. The shelf life is 13-18 months, so that's a recurring cost, and I'd like to have more than one (perhaps carry one on my person and store one safely at home). I'd look for factory-sealed, tamper-evident packaging.
I'm privileged to be able to even consider spending the $3000 (I don't have severe allergies, so haven't actually made this decision). It's not at all ridiculous that someone on a tighter budget would make the same decision if it was $30 vs $300, and might make compromises on the QA. And "just go to the ER" doesn't cut it: regardless of the cost, that could take hours, while you may only have minutes to spare in the case of anaphylactic shock. You take the injection AND go straight to the ER, it's not an either-or thing.
I'm privileged to be able to even consider spending the $3000 (I don't have severe allergies, so haven't actually made this decision). It's not at all ridiculous that someone on a tighter budget would make the same decision if it was $30 vs $300, and might make compromises on the QA. And "just go to the ER" doesn't cut it: regardless of the cost, that could take hours, while you may only have minutes to spare in the case of anaphylactic shock. You take the injection AND go straight to the ER, it's not an either-or thing.
$3k isn't close to the retail cost of an epipen nowadays, and the brand name epipen is a fraction of the market now that generics are available.
Two shot kits range from $100-$300, depending on whether you are buying genetic or brand name, whether you use goodrx, etc.
Two shot kits range from $100-$300, depending on whether you are buying genetic or brand name, whether you use goodrx, etc.
Putting this burden on the commercial parties is the type of thing that causes inflation.
Police this.
Police this.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Looks like it's already a federal crime of it's own with possible prison time: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1991
IANAL, but States are not "within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States"
In this context "the United States" means the federal government. States are also within the jurisdiction of the state government, and therefore not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
This is the exact same reason why the US president can only pardon federal crimes.
In this context "the United States" means the federal government. States are also within the jurisdiction of the state government, and therefore not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
This is the exact same reason why the US president can only pardon federal crimes.
The conditions are ORed, not ANDed:
Whoever, in any Territory or District, OR within or upon any place within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States
(Capitalisation for emphasis by me.)
The crime depicted is a federal one under US law.
Whoever, in any Territory or District, OR within or upon any place within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States
(Capitalisation for emphasis by me.)
The crime depicted is a federal one under US law.
A State is also not a Territory or a District.
Do you have a specific reference addressing this, because I'm not finding a clear statement one way or the other.
Title 18 lacks a Definitions section that I can find.
Title 18 lacks a Definitions section that I can find.
Not a definitive source, but here's FATCA for example:
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties...
> The term “U.S. Territory” means American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_Stat...
And there's plenty of references to legal documents clearly stating or implying that territories are in fact not sovereign entities (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_v._Sanchez_Valle)
And obviously there's only one Disctrict. The District of Columbia.
So it's actually fairly complex to define "the United States", because the answer is generally "it depends on the context"
> The term “U.S. Territory” means American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_Stat...
And there's plenty of references to legal documents clearly stating or implying that territories are in fact not sovereign entities (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_v._Sanchez_Valle)
And obviously there's only one Disctrict. The District of Columbia.
So it's actually fairly complex to define "the United States", because the answer is generally "it depends on the context"
Thanks.
I'm trying to determine whether or not the language in Title 18 refers to "territory" in the sense of "any land that is part of the United States" (which would include the states), or "organised Territories exclusive of states". It's odd that the language is chosen but not clarified.
I'm aware that generally states have jurisdiction within their own boundaries, but that interstate commerce is an exception. Given railroads' history ... the distinction, contenxt, and intent seem needlessly vague.
Your original point remains though it's not clear to me it's the correct interpretation.
I'm trying to determine whether or not the language in Title 18 refers to "territory" in the sense of "any land that is part of the United States" (which would include the states), or "organised Territories exclusive of states". It's odd that the language is chosen but not clarified.
I'm aware that generally states have jurisdiction within their own boundaries, but that interstate commerce is an exception. Given railroads' history ... the distinction, contenxt, and intent seem needlessly vague.
Your original point remains though it's not clear to me it's the correct interpretation.
Hrm...
I imagine this will get sorted since Buffett both invests in Union Pacific and provides insurance. He famously doesn't get involved in the companies in which he invests, but I imagine his people could shoot over a question like, "why is this happening?"
Society should be strong enough *not* to have to rely on random idiot billionaires to sponsor basic social services like law enforcement.
The railroad itself is incentivized to secure its own goods. We aren't "reliant" on them to do that.
If Buffett sells his stake in UP, someone else buys it and the company continues on. They got big because they figured out how to build a profitable business. Part of that is security. None of that makes us dependent on them. We have a mutual dependence through trade. Businesses provide something we want, and we give them something they want.
If Buffett sells his stake in UP, someone else buys it and the company continues on. They got big because they figured out how to build a profitable business. Part of that is security. None of that makes us dependent on them. We have a mutual dependence through trade. Businesses provide something we want, and we give them something they want.
I don't think Buffett invests in Union Pacific. His company fully owns BNSF which holds a duopoly with Union Pacific in the Western United States.
It looks like Buffett owned Union Pacific shares a while back, but sold them in 2009 so that they could buy BNSF.
It looks like Buffett owned Union Pacific shares a while back, but sold them in 2009 so that they could buy BNSF.
> Any resourced
I thought we all rooted here to defund the police? Should we backtrack that idea?
Edit: I seem to have broken a nerve in some people here. Sorry, for being snarky. I just think that you can't reduce funding for a gov agency but also then expect it to be resourced. Just using sterile logic to make this conclusion.
I thought we all rooted here to defund the police? Should we backtrack that idea?
Edit: I seem to have broken a nerve in some people here. Sorry, for being snarky. I just think that you can't reduce funding for a gov agency but also then expect it to be resourced. Just using sterile logic to make this conclusion.
LAPD funding went _up_ 12% during and after the George Floyd protests (The highest it's ever been! The highest in the country per capita!). In fact, LASD/public schools got a cut in funding to help fund the LAPD budget. Granted, per the article, LAPD doesn't service freight rail lines, maybe because they'd say they'd be stretched too thin – and to be fair, 800+ of them are on leave for COVID, and falsely blaming it on defunding (which is corroborated by LAPD's own PR department, saying the statements put out should not have been).
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-11/covid-19...
https://laist.com/news/politics/mayor-garcetti-signs-11-2-bi...
https://www.lataco.com/lapd-office-closed-defunding-false/
These statements are facts, yours are... what, exactly?
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-11/covid-19...
https://laist.com/news/politics/mayor-garcetti-signs-11-2-bi...
https://www.lataco.com/lapd-office-closed-defunding-false/
These statements are facts, yours are... what, exactly?
I am talking in general, not specifically about LAPD. There seems to be a rude awakening, where I live: https://www.npr.org/2021/12/11/1063408465/oakland-city-counc...
> The city council voted last summer to redirect money proposed for Oakland's Police Department to social services. But this week, defund the police became refund to the police. The same city council approved two new police academies and voted to hire a professional recruiter to attract officers to its department after a wave of resignations.
> The city council voted last summer to redirect money proposed for Oakland's Police Department to social services. But this week, defund the police became refund to the police. The same city council approved two new police academies and voted to hire a professional recruiter to attract officers to its department after a wave of resignations.
If we're not talking about Los Angeles – which is what this entire article is based on – then you're opening up pandora's box.
What about Scandinavian or Western European countries, then? Maybe closer to home, what about NYC – the year the NYPD went on strike, crime went _down_ (not just a drop in arrests, but actual murders, theft, etc). and NYPD realized they'd have to voluntarily restart policing (without the desired increase in labor terms), or NYC City Council might realize they're not as necessary as they originally set out to prove.
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proacti...
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/6/7501953/nypd-mayor-arrests-unio...
When you fund a prison-industrial complex, you're creating a system that incentivizes incarceration, not rehabilitation. These systems don't want to solve crime – they want to set out to look for (or, some would say, create) crime. Other countries realized this, and seem to have much less actual crime as a result, while protecting things that actually matter (i.e. their major trade routes/people's lives/the general wellbeing of society). The US seems to have this idea that... if you don't have a home, or you're addicted to drugs, or you need a wellness check, you're more dangerous than a murderer or a thief (given that the former group makes up the vast majority of those incarcerated)
What about Scandinavian or Western European countries, then? Maybe closer to home, what about NYC – the year the NYPD went on strike, crime went _down_ (not just a drop in arrests, but actual murders, theft, etc). and NYPD realized they'd have to voluntarily restart policing (without the desired increase in labor terms), or NYC City Council might realize they're not as necessary as they originally set out to prove.
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proacti...
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/6/7501953/nypd-mayor-arrests-unio...
When you fund a prison-industrial complex, you're creating a system that incentivizes incarceration, not rehabilitation. These systems don't want to solve crime – they want to set out to look for (or, some would say, create) crime. Other countries realized this, and seem to have much less actual crime as a result, while protecting things that actually matter (i.e. their major trade routes/people's lives/the general wellbeing of society). The US seems to have this idea that... if you don't have a home, or you're addicted to drugs, or you need a wellness check, you're more dangerous than a murderer or a thief (given that the former group makes up the vast majority of those incarcerated)
Oakland budget is still higher than its ever been, they just gave them less of a raise than expected last year. The money cut in 2020 was mostly due to the pandemic.
2019-2021 was 635 million allotted, 20mil less than the 665 mil project, due to the pandemic. The 2021-2023 budget is 674 million, with an additional 18 million spent on the community based programs.
The budget is ever increasing, contrary to what a lot of people like to tout.
2019-2021 was 635 million allotted, 20mil less than the 665 mil project, due to the pandemic. The 2021-2023 budget is 674 million, with an additional 18 million spent on the community based programs.
The budget is ever increasing, contrary to what a lot of people like to tout.
I’m sure that article is not making the point you think it is. In fact the editor seems to have missed the point with the title as well.
> What has not been reported as much is that the number of authorized sworn officers has remained unchanged. What we voted on last Tuesday is a more aggressive push to fill 60 budgeted vacant police officer positions that we had already approved in June that are not yet filled because our academy system is failing.
The rest of the paragraph explains how certain groups are using this concept of defunding the police to stoke fear in people like you. Incredibly ironic.
> What has not been reported as much is that the number of authorized sworn officers has remained unchanged. What we voted on last Tuesday is a more aggressive push to fill 60 budgeted vacant police officer positions that we had already approved in June that are not yet filled because our academy system is failing.
The rest of the paragraph explains how certain groups are using this concept of defunding the police to stoke fear in people like you. Incredibly ironic.
Very few people want to actually defund the police. But try being a black friend of mine, who got thrown out of his car without resisting and beaten so bad he had to go to an ICU, purely because he was driving a car that “matched the description” (that didn’t even match the color) of a crime in the area, and perhaps you can begin to understand why the “other side” is frustrated…
And let me guess. You think these train robberies happen because they defunded the police in their area…?
And let me guess. You think these train robberies happen because they defunded the police in their area…?
I am well aware of the colloquial term "Defund the police" which is often met by "No, not literally defund it". But the reality is that there is a strong support to reduce resources and move towards soft-policing.
Have you been to the Bay Area? Apartment complexes and condominiums are hardened like castles while their kids play in the safe courtyards and the outside is rotting to the point of unsafe for male padestrians, let alone women and kids. These are the same people voting for these policies. Completely deranged.
Have you been to the Bay Area? Apartment complexes and condominiums are hardened like castles while their kids play in the safe courtyards and the outside is rotting to the point of unsafe for male padestrians, let alone women and kids. These are the same people voting for these policies. Completely deranged.
Dude, I literally live in the Bay Area. And crime here is no where even close to bad as it was where I used to live in Texas. It’s all relative. Especially when politics is involved.
I see absolutely no reason to believe that raising police budgets would somehow magically fix this. It wouldn’t. We have deeper societal issues at hand.
I see absolutely no reason to believe that raising police budgets would somehow magically fix this. It wouldn’t. We have deeper societal issues at hand.
Certain areas in Bay Area (may be south bay) are probably better than others.
Digging around a bit, SF (and generally the rest of the bay area follows) has a substantially higher crime rate than say Austin or the US average: https://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/austin_tx/san_fran...
There are probably better sources than what I linked. It is really bad here in my experience and I want to move out.
Digging around a bit, SF (and generally the rest of the bay area follows) has a substantially higher crime rate than say Austin or the US average: https://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/austin_tx/san_fran...
There are probably better sources than what I linked. It is really bad here in my experience and I want to move out.
What kinds of crime are you talking about? Loitering? Murder? Again, it’s all relative. How would increased police funding help with ANY of that…?
There are plenty of reasons to want to move out of the Bay Area. Christ, traffic on the 101 often makes me want to jump off the golden gate bridge - but I don’t see how snarky remarks about “defund the police” help one way or another without dramatically misunderstanding and oversimplifying the real causes of this city’s problems.
There are plenty of reasons to want to move out of the Bay Area. Christ, traffic on the 101 often makes me want to jump off the golden gate bridge - but I don’t see how snarky remarks about “defund the police” help one way or another without dramatically misunderstanding and oversimplifying the real causes of this city’s problems.
For me the main reason to leave is crime and general third-worldlyness. Got my car broken into several times, several parks are occupied by the homeless, Citizen app is going crazy where I live, the whole thing is not what I think of a developed nation.
I can deal with traffic, weather is wonderful.
I can deal with traffic, weather is wonderful.
Crime in SF itself is pretty localized.
The Tenderloin is practically like a South African slum. Sunnydale, Bayview/Hunter's Point and the south side of Potrero are dangerous. You have to watch yourself in the Mission, downtown, SoMa, and a few other neighborhoods.
But in Forest Hill you might as well be in Menlo Park. Pac Heights is generally safe. So is the Presidio. Even Noe Valley, right next to the Mission, is much safer. Crime doesn't like to climb.
The Tenderloin is practically like a South African slum. Sunnydale, Bayview/Hunter's Point and the south side of Potrero are dangerous. You have to watch yourself in the Mission, downtown, SoMa, and a few other neighborhoods.
But in Forest Hill you might as well be in Menlo Park. Pac Heights is generally safe. So is the Presidio. Even Noe Valley, right next to the Mission, is much safer. Crime doesn't like to climb.
> Have you been to the Bay Area? Apartment complexes and condominiums are hardened like castles while their kids play in the safe courtyards and the outside is rotting to the point of unsafe for male padestrians, let alone women and kids.
I don't think this is a fair description of the vast majority of the SF Bay Area. Perhaps it describes well some bits of Hayward and Oakland.
Large amounts of the SF Bay Area have crime rates well below the national median.
I don't think this is a fair description of the vast majority of the SF Bay Area. Perhaps it describes well some bits of Hayward and Oakland.
Large amounts of the SF Bay Area have crime rates well below the national median.
It's a fairly accurate description of the apartment towers in downtown SF.
Police are focusing all of their efforts elsewhere. They don't care about property crime like this. Also, as pointed out elsewhere on the thread, policing the tracks is the responsibility of the railroad company, not LAPD.
Do they publish what they do spend time on?
Catching pokemon apparently :)
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-10/appeals-...
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-10/appeals-...
The police are already ridiculously well-funded (on average, there are exceptions). Look at their budgets and start asking "where the hell does the money go?"
They don't need more money. They need to be held accountable.
They don't need more money. They need to be held accountable.
Do you think the police in the jurisdiction where these train thefts occurred was underfunded? I’d be thrilled to hear your solution…
The actual responsible enforcement agency is in Omaha Nebraska, whereas the LAPD has had increased funding through the years.
Perhaps surprisingly, the police force with jurisdiction here appears to be a private one, not a government agency.
[deleted]
My observation from the comment sections to this post-apocalyptic video is the following: People focusing on how to prevent the theft of these cars, funding police, armed guards on trans, better security.
I think this is an interesting perspective, it's very "American", it's like it has been accepted by these commenters that rampant thievery is a perfectly natural part of life and so, must be worked around rather than solved.
But, protecting a thing from theft, rather than removing the reason thievery is so rampant, just moves the problem to someone else.. Like putting locks and security on your home, "Now they won't break into MY home, because the guy next door has less security, so they'll go at him instead".
Come on, the problem is not that it's easy to steal, the problem is that society has constructed situations for some of its citizens where they for one reason or another do it.
I walked around last year, in an opera house, public building, no one in sight, empty building, unlocked doors, there were paintings on the walls, and I identified audio equipment for at least $10k, and it was not unlocked by mistake. Then it struck me, that we've done well in society when we can have this.
I think this is an interesting perspective, it's very "American", it's like it has been accepted by these commenters that rampant thievery is a perfectly natural part of life and so, must be worked around rather than solved.
But, protecting a thing from theft, rather than removing the reason thievery is so rampant, just moves the problem to someone else.. Like putting locks and security on your home, "Now they won't break into MY home, because the guy next door has less security, so they'll go at him instead".
Come on, the problem is not that it's easy to steal, the problem is that society has constructed situations for some of its citizens where they for one reason or another do it.
I walked around last year, in an opera house, public building, no one in sight, empty building, unlocked doors, there were paintings on the walls, and I identified audio equipment for at least $10k, and it was not unlocked by mistake. Then it struck me, that we've done well in society when we can have this.
There are situations that make it more likely that people will steal, but I don't think it is wise to off-load all of the responsibility to society.
Some people will never steal even to save their own life, because they have principles which guide them in that direction.
I think it is important to recognize that our society has less respect for property laws and is more accepting of dishonesty, theft, and general lack of honor than many previous societies. As the cultural value of integrity declines, people see no reason to refrain from theft and violence, so if a situation presents itself where it seems advantageous to them, they take it, even if it is not advantageous to society or causes great harm to someone else. It seems that empathy is lacking in our society as well.
Some people will never steal even to save their own life, because they have principles which guide them in that direction.
I think it is important to recognize that our society has less respect for property laws and is more accepting of dishonesty, theft, and general lack of honor than many previous societies. As the cultural value of integrity declines, people see no reason to refrain from theft and violence, so if a situation presents itself where it seems advantageous to them, they take it, even if it is not advantageous to society or causes great harm to someone else. It seems that empathy is lacking in our society as well.
> Some people will never steal even to save their own life, because they have principles which guide them in that direction.
Are you sure there are, or do you think there are based on a Disneyesque view of morality?
Are you sure there are, or do you think there are based on a Disneyesque view of morality?
I'm thinking the same thing. Not stealing to save your own life is just plain stupid.
Stealing because you're dirt poor and want more, while ethically and morally wrong, is understandable.
Stealing even though you could easily afford to buy, that's either a mental illness or a character/education/culture flaw.
Stealing because you're dirt poor and want more, while ethically and morally wrong, is understandable.
Stealing even though you could easily afford to buy, that's either a mental illness or a character/education/culture flaw.
I think this is kind of an example of the cyncism the parent was mentioning we can't conceive of the idea of people who places a higher import upon their honor and their good name than upon their needs. It is then further pushed along by the cynical and jaded ridiculing people of principle as suckers, and to be taken advantage of.
I for one would not rob someone or still, even to save my life because my integrity is worth far more to me than that.
I for one would not rob someone or still, even to save my life because my integrity is worth far more to me than that.
Yes, I'm sure of it. If anything, it is the opposite of what you would learn in Disney. There are people in the concentration camps who did not steal or who even gave away the food they had to help others, people who go on hunger strike until they die for principles, there are people who go to certain death in war on principle, lots of examples of people who would die to protect their family rather than abandon them, and there are examples of people helping others get the safety/on the helicopter harness until they themselves die (and that's where saving themselves wouldn't even be viewed negatively or break a personal belief, it's just pure unselfish helping others at the cost of your own life). Those principles, or the resilience of them, may be uncommon or even rare, but it is definitely possible to have a stronger desire to have integrity and comply with a belief system than to live.
> Some people will never steal even to save their own life, because they have principles which guide them in that direction.
Isn't this a restatement of the Fundamental Attribution Error?
Isn't this a restatement of the Fundamental Attribution Error?
Indeed. There's so much focus on short-term solutions for crime – even outside of the US.
Taking a leaf from Deming, we have a system, a process, a society that creates a certain, relatively stable, number of criminals per year. Trying to address specific criminal acts or specific criminals is just meddling that can backlash as easily as it can help.
When you have a stable source of trouble, it makes no sense to try to fix individual occurrences. You have to address the problem at the source.
We have created this system! We can create something else if we're unhappy with it.
Taking a leaf from Deming, we have a system, a process, a society that creates a certain, relatively stable, number of criminals per year. Trying to address specific criminal acts or specific criminals is just meddling that can backlash as easily as it can help.
When you have a stable source of trouble, it makes no sense to try to fix individual occurrences. You have to address the problem at the source.
We have created this system! We can create something else if we're unhappy with it.
How do you solve the source of the problem when it is created due to problems at multiple layers and at best you can only change one or two layers?
> Indeed. There's so much focus on short-term solutions for crime – even outside of the US.
There's an old nugget that if anyone could time-travel they'd go back in time and kill Hitler. Nobody would go a few more years back to educate him.
People are not educated to look at the big picture but to react in the moment. Stop the theft as it's happening. Shoot. This goes best with societies where taking a life is considered appropriate response to someone trying to steal your fishing lure, societies where your individual rights trump absolutely anything else (imagine explicitly voting to pay more taxes yourself because that will benefit the poorer part of the population).
Reacting in the moment requires almost no thought out process. It's mostly autonomous, a reflex. Thinking of the bigger picture, identifying a root cause, identifying the impact of each of your options, these all take a strong enough education to override that reflex.
There's an old nugget that if anyone could time-travel they'd go back in time and kill Hitler. Nobody would go a few more years back to educate him.
People are not educated to look at the big picture but to react in the moment. Stop the theft as it's happening. Shoot. This goes best with societies where taking a life is considered appropriate response to someone trying to steal your fishing lure, societies where your individual rights trump absolutely anything else (imagine explicitly voting to pay more taxes yourself because that will benefit the poorer part of the population).
Reacting in the moment requires almost no thought out process. It's mostly autonomous, a reflex. Thinking of the bigger picture, identifying a root cause, identifying the impact of each of your options, these all take a strong enough education to override that reflex.
Eh. People will disagree on what the root cause is. Just to give you an idea how easy it is to undermine this argument. What if I declare that the root cause of all this is being human. What do you do?
Thinking of bigger picture is all well and good, but the moment you mention education I cannot help, but chuckle. In the context of US, education already is.. lets call it overburdened. Maybe the solution is not to override the reflex, but to appropriately channel it.
For the record, I am just putting words together. It is late and infant does not want to sleep.
Thinking of bigger picture is all well and good, but the moment you mention education I cannot help, but chuckle. In the context of US, education already is.. lets call it overburdened. Maybe the solution is not to override the reflex, but to appropriately channel it.
For the record, I am just putting words together. It is late and infant does not want to sleep.
> What if I declare that the root cause of all this is being human. What do you do?
Ask you what your evidence is for that assertion given that crime rates vary so widely around the world for disparate reasons.
The prevalence and types of crimes committed really do vary widely as well (though its often hard to get a clear picture since different countries have different reporting mechanisms (or none at all)).
Ask you what your evidence is for that assertion given that crime rates vary so widely around the world for disparate reasons.
The prevalence and types of crimes committed really do vary widely as well (though its often hard to get a clear picture since different countries have different reporting mechanisms (or none at all)).
But some crime always persists non? The problem is the intersection between irrational actors being put in a game predicated on consequences.
Hitler was significantly more educated than most modern progressives. From wikipedia:
He read newspapers and pamphlets that published the thoughts of philosophers and theoreticians such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Charles Darwin, Friedrich Nietzsche, Gustave Le Bon and Arthur Schopenhauer. Georg Ritter von Schönerer became a major influence on Hitler. He also developed an admiration for Martin Luther. During his time in Vienna, he pursued a growing passion for architecture and music, attending ten performances of Lohengrin, his favourite Wagner opera.
I take issue with every sentence you wrote. "Highly educated"? I don't think so. "Some of the authors" - you mean Nietzsche, I guess. It seems likely he didn't read Nietzsche's books, but just the bits quoted in (anti-semitic) newspapers. Check out Chamberlain and Schönerer. The first thing you notice is the strong Nazi-type flavour of their thoughts. Wagner and Luther are notorious for their extreme anti-semitism. That first wiki-sentence comes to "He read the paper". My understanding is, on the street corners and cafes of Vienna in those days were a dozen different half-nutty political groups, and Hitler took a bit from every one of them. The stuff was in the air, if you stopped to breathe it in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Stewart_Chamberlain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Ritter_von_Sch%C3%B6nere...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Stewart_Chamberlain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Ritter_von_Sch%C3%B6nere...
> Return backwards in time and kill Hitler
Hum, could I suggest an evil alternative? Just schedule a few meetings with the people that lend money to Hitler and explain them that he will try to keep the money and will go to extreme measures to avoid returning it, including killing them or their relatives if possible. Really bad investment, don't touch this turd with a thousand foot pole. Thank me later when you still own your castle in Europe.
Result: Hitler never climb in a position to became Hitler. Nobody dies, nobody needs to enter in a war to recover the investment and you don't became a murderer. Hollywood would be devastated for sure but, apart of this...everybody wins :-)
Hum, could I suggest an evil alternative? Just schedule a few meetings with the people that lend money to Hitler and explain them that he will try to keep the money and will go to extreme measures to avoid returning it, including killing them or their relatives if possible. Really bad investment, don't touch this turd with a thousand foot pole. Thank me later when you still own your castle in Europe.
Result: Hitler never climb in a position to became Hitler. Nobody dies, nobody needs to enter in a war to recover the investment and you don't became a murderer. Hollywood would be devastated for sure but, apart of this...everybody wins :-)
Hitler didn't do his thing in a vacuum. There was an opportunity for him, circumstances, values of the time, the trauma to Germany what happened in the first world war and after it, competing ideologies like communism, political instability in Germany, inflation, recession etc.
So maybe the person could go back in time and discuss with the negotiators at the Versailles treaty after the first world war. Or maybe try to inject some economics education to try to prevent the hyperinflation.
Room for some XKCD or SMBC comics!
So maybe the person could go back in time and discuss with the negotiators at the Versailles treaty after the first world war. Or maybe try to inject some economics education to try to prevent the hyperinflation.
Room for some XKCD or SMBC comics!
It's not just education, it's shitty parenting. You'd recursively have to educate Hitler's parents, and to do that you have to educate their parents etc. ad nauseum. Pretty soon you'd blow your stack. Naive interventionism is worse than just whacking Hitler.
I think the point is to whack hitler now but also invest in education now so that you have less hitlers to whack in a few generations time.
Do people really grow up to be their parents? Did you?
They don't. People grow up to be like their friends, who in turn grow up to be like the general cultural sentiments among the adults they interact with. (Source: The Nurture Assumption.)
Why do you think Hitler was Hitler?
Why do yall think Hitler invented anti-semitism in Germany? Big Bad Wolf fallacy.
The same thing has been happening in SF with homelessness. A lot of people think they should go to prison or be displaced somewhere else. It’s like refusing to accept that there’s a root cause.
Arguably SF’s lack of police response enables continued drug abuse and homelessness.
See: https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2021/rescuing-jessica-s...
This person has no interest in treatment. They want to do drugs and take advantage of what’s provided to keep doing that.
You can’t fix that with hotels. You either need to require treatment or imprison (paired with arresting dealers).
On the more progressive end, maybe drug clinics that administer drugs to addicts for free onsite (to crash the dealer market while you’re going after them). Eventually you have to force a choice. The do drugs openly while living in a tent on the street can’t be an option.
See: https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2021/rescuing-jessica-s...
This person has no interest in treatment. They want to do drugs and take advantage of what’s provided to keep doing that.
You can’t fix that with hotels. You either need to require treatment or imprison (paired with arresting dealers).
On the more progressive end, maybe drug clinics that administer drugs to addicts for free onsite (to crash the dealer market while you’re going after them). Eventually you have to force a choice. The do drugs openly while living in a tent on the street can’t be an option.
Your thinking here is still focused on symptoms rather than causes.
Most people don't develop debilitating drug addictions without underlying problems. Even most people with drug addictions don't get to a point where they can't hold down a job or have a need to carry out crime to fund it, but of those who do it's worth considering why when e.g. a typical heroin addict can hold down a job and could have funded their addiction for ~$20/day if they had access to clean, medical grade heroin (we know the price, because e.g. the UK NHS buys medical grade heroin for use for post-operative pain management - under the generic name diamorphine).
So there's a long path there from failure to address mental health issues and other social problems, via failure to provide safe, clean supplies and early intervention for those who still get addicted to drugs, failure to regulate healthcare properly (e.g. the prescription oxy -> black market oxy -> heroin recruitment path), and failure to ensure availability of jobs, and lacking welfare options, before worrying about treatment and emergency housing is even in the picture.
Start addressing root causes and a lot of the problems later in that chain would either go away or at least be substantially diminished.
Most people don't develop debilitating drug addictions without underlying problems. Even most people with drug addictions don't get to a point where they can't hold down a job or have a need to carry out crime to fund it, but of those who do it's worth considering why when e.g. a typical heroin addict can hold down a job and could have funded their addiction for ~$20/day if they had access to clean, medical grade heroin (we know the price, because e.g. the UK NHS buys medical grade heroin for use for post-operative pain management - under the generic name diamorphine).
So there's a long path there from failure to address mental health issues and other social problems, via failure to provide safe, clean supplies and early intervention for those who still get addicted to drugs, failure to regulate healthcare properly (e.g. the prescription oxy -> black market oxy -> heroin recruitment path), and failure to ensure availability of jobs, and lacking welfare options, before worrying about treatment and emergency housing is even in the picture.
Start addressing root causes and a lot of the problems later in that chain would either go away or at least be substantially diminished.
Broken families, abusive childhood environments, terrible influences and friends are among some of those root causes. Check out interviews with Skid Row residents on Youtube if you want to get a good taste of the diversity of reasons for why people end up in those situations. It will be really hard to break the cycle in the US without forcibly separating many, many children from their parents and letting the government raise them in more functioning environments.
Not necessarily, someone could have an awful childhood but with adequate mental health help and support, not fall into addiction and homelessness in adult life. Ideally, yes, we'd eliminate all causes of trauma, but we can also put a _lot_ more effort into mitigating the effects later in life, rather than (subconsciously?) chalking it up to a moral failure in the affected person.
> Your thinking here is still focused on symptoms rather than causes.
We need to clean up the mess and prevent more being added at the same time.
It is not like we can only do either preventive or reactive.
We need to clean up the mess and prevent more being added at the same time.
It is not like we can only do either preventive or reactive.
It's aside your point, but you may be thinking of fentanyl rather than diamorphine (street name heroin) with regards to the NHS. The former is often used in NHS hospitals for intraoperative and postoperative pain relief, the latter almost never for anything.
No, I'm thinking of diamorphine. I'm not questioning that fentanyl is also used, but so is diamorphine, and the point was not that it is used a lot, but that it is used enough that we have reliable data on the cost of various doses of it.
Here are some pages covering various uses by the NHS
Most relevant to the point I made, here is a pricing page for diamorphine for the NHS[1].
Use during birth: [2]
"This is an injection of a medicine called pethidine into your thigh or buttock to relieve pain. It can also help you to relax. Sometimes, less commonly, a medicine called diamorphine is used."
Use in NHS Scotland [3]: "Unlicensed intranasal diamorphine has been used in the NHS in Scotland for the treatment of severe pain in children in the emergency setting. The availability of diamorphine hydrochloride nasal spray (Ayendi®) provides a licensed preparation."
Article on recent-ish supply problems[4] due to a problem at one of the manufacturers:
"NHS trusts forced to use ‘expensive’ pre-filled diamorphine syringes to manage ongoing supply issues
Exclusive: Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust has had to source pre-filled diamorphine syringes from other NHS trusts to meet demand."
NICE advice on diamorphine use [5] lists indications and doses for acute pain, chronic pain not currently treated with a strong opioid analgesic, acute pulmonary oedema, myocardial infarction.
NHS patient information (word doc) [6] on the shortage: "Diamorphine is licensed to treat severe pain associated with surgery, heart attack or a terminal illness. It is also used for the relief of shortness of breath in severe heart conditions. In addition, a small number of people in the UK may be receiving diamorphine to manage heroin addiction."
So while I have no idea about the actual volume of use, as you can tell the NHS has suppliers, and NICE has a price list.
[1] https://bnf.nice.org.uk/medicinal-forms/diamorphine-hydrochl...
[2] https://www.nhs.uk/pregnancy/labour-and-birth/what-happens/p...
[3] https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/news/nhs-trusts-f...
[4] https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/medicines-advice/diamor...
[5] https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drug/diamorphine-hydrochloride.html#...
[6] https://www.england.nhs.uk/south/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/...
Here are some pages covering various uses by the NHS
Most relevant to the point I made, here is a pricing page for diamorphine for the NHS[1].
Use during birth: [2]
"This is an injection of a medicine called pethidine into your thigh or buttock to relieve pain. It can also help you to relax. Sometimes, less commonly, a medicine called diamorphine is used."
Use in NHS Scotland [3]: "Unlicensed intranasal diamorphine has been used in the NHS in Scotland for the treatment of severe pain in children in the emergency setting. The availability of diamorphine hydrochloride nasal spray (Ayendi®) provides a licensed preparation."
Article on recent-ish supply problems[4] due to a problem at one of the manufacturers:
"NHS trusts forced to use ‘expensive’ pre-filled diamorphine syringes to manage ongoing supply issues
Exclusive: Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust has had to source pre-filled diamorphine syringes from other NHS trusts to meet demand."
NICE advice on diamorphine use [5] lists indications and doses for acute pain, chronic pain not currently treated with a strong opioid analgesic, acute pulmonary oedema, myocardial infarction.
NHS patient information (word doc) [6] on the shortage: "Diamorphine is licensed to treat severe pain associated with surgery, heart attack or a terminal illness. It is also used for the relief of shortness of breath in severe heart conditions. In addition, a small number of people in the UK may be receiving diamorphine to manage heroin addiction."
So while I have no idea about the actual volume of use, as you can tell the NHS has suppliers, and NICE has a price list.
[1] https://bnf.nice.org.uk/medicinal-forms/diamorphine-hydrochl...
[2] https://www.nhs.uk/pregnancy/labour-and-birth/what-happens/p...
[3] https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/news/nhs-trusts-f...
[4] https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/medicines-advice/diamor...
[5] https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drug/diamorphine-hydrochloride.html#...
[6] https://www.england.nhs.uk/south/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/...
Well I stand corrected. I've only seen it prescribed under a home office license for treatment of addiction in a single case. Many of your examples seem to relate to paediatrics and maternity care which perhaps explains my ignorance as I work outside these areas.
Root cause prevent - my friend who got hooked ok coke & lost everything for getting caught on the job site would’ve been better off if that coke dealer had been busted before my friend bought coke. Or if my friend’s middle-class parents had disciplined him more. Or maybe if he had a more ridged sports program in college that helped athletes avoid the perils of college parties Vs cutting him.
Arresting dealers / busting drug rings is one of the few policing activities that directly leads to MORE crime.
What happens when you bust a drug ring and arrest some big players? You immediately create a power vacuum, which leads to a turf war where other players (in the gang or between gangs) start jockeying for power, spreading their mayhem across the area.
The only solution here is legalization, treatment, and general social welfare.
What happens when you bust a drug ring and arrest some big players? You immediately create a power vacuum, which leads to a turf war where other players (in the gang or between gangs) start jockeying for power, spreading their mayhem across the area.
The only solution here is legalization, treatment, and general social welfare.
Only if you keep the market alive.
Arrest the dealers and administer the drug to addicts for free at clinics? I think that would be an interesting approach.
I'm not a policy expert. I used to agree with you, but I think part of the issue is trivial access to drugs (see the tenderloin). It's harder for addicts to quit when it's very easy to get the drug (whether that's via dealers or legalization) and the city helps to enable you (hotel shelters, etc.) I understand the good intent and compassion, but a lot of bad policy on the left starts with good intent and ends with unanticipated bad consequences. Cities with arguably crueler enforcement don't have these issues (San Mateo). SF attracts addicts because they know it's lax and drug access is easy. Pair that with NIMBY housing policy and it's very hard to get housed and off of drugs.
I'd argue the SF approach to this has been a failure, London Breed's recent speech on the topic is something I agree with. The equilibrium we're trapped in is bad. We need to force a choice and that choice is likely either treatment or prison.
Arrest the dealers and administer the drug to addicts for free at clinics? I think that would be an interesting approach.
I'm not a policy expert. I used to agree with you, but I think part of the issue is trivial access to drugs (see the tenderloin). It's harder for addicts to quit when it's very easy to get the drug (whether that's via dealers or legalization) and the city helps to enable you (hotel shelters, etc.) I understand the good intent and compassion, but a lot of bad policy on the left starts with good intent and ends with unanticipated bad consequences. Cities with arguably crueler enforcement don't have these issues (San Mateo). SF attracts addicts because they know it's lax and drug access is easy. Pair that with NIMBY housing policy and it's very hard to get housed and off of drugs.
I'd argue the SF approach to this has been a failure, London Breed's recent speech on the topic is something I agree with. The equilibrium we're trapped in is bad. We need to force a choice and that choice is likely either treatment or prison.
> I'd argue the SF approach to this
I mean, it's a national crisis. It's easy to point the zits on my face but the problem is in what I eat.
I mean, it's a national crisis. It's easy to point the zits on my face but the problem is in what I eat.
>maybe drug clinics that administer drugs to addicts for free onsite
That is an interesting idea. All kinds of ethical issues for handing out free heroin, but why not take all the confiscated drugs, test them for safety and hand them out for free at clinics with some damage-reduction safe guards like daily per-person limits, offer rehab and mental health services, etc? Turn addicts into informants without even trying, because if they rat out dealers, the dope is free. I doubt users have the long-term awareness to see that it eventually reduce supply.
That is an interesting idea. All kinds of ethical issues for handing out free heroin, but why not take all the confiscated drugs, test them for safety and hand them out for free at clinics with some damage-reduction safe guards like daily per-person limits, offer rehab and mental health services, etc? Turn addicts into informants without even trying, because if they rat out dealers, the dope is free. I doubt users have the long-term awareness to see that it eventually reduce supply.
Heroin itself is much less damaging to your body than more popular drugs like tobacco or alcohol.
Making it harder for addicts to get heroin or a replacement will only increase the energy they will spend on getting it. This makes it nearly impossible to get to a better place in their life. It is mostly getting the drug that has a negative effect on holding down a job, not the drug itself.
Making it harder for addicts to get heroin or a replacement will only increase the energy they will spend on getting it. This makes it nearly impossible to get to a better place in their life. It is mostly getting the drug that has a negative effect on holding down a job, not the drug itself.
It’s much more damaging to the mind and ability to have a functional life.
My sister was a functional alcoholic for 25 years. When she started heroine, everything changed, and she overdosed within 2.
My sister was a functional alcoholic for 25 years. When she started heroine, everything changed, and she overdosed within 2.
There's a group of people that like to pretend heroin is less harmful despite all the evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure if they're users rationalizing their own use or what, but it's an odd thing I've noticed.
Alcohol is really bad for your mind. I don't think there is sufficient evidence, that heroin is worse than alcohol for your brain.
She couldn't have been a functional alcoholic for 25 year if alcohol were an illegal substance.
There are plenty of people who have a normal life on methadone or heroin if it is provided to them.
As already stated, if you are an addict, getting the substance is the highest priority. Making it harder to get just makes them use more of their resources to get them.
She couldn't have been a functional alcoholic for 25 year if alcohol were an illegal substance.
There are plenty of people who have a normal life on methadone or heroin if it is provided to them.
As already stated, if you are an addict, getting the substance is the highest priority. Making it harder to get just makes them use more of their resources to get them.
> is worse than alcohol for your brain
It depends on the definition of "worse". If cell death over time, then maybe alcohol is worse. If it's how much a recreational/entertaining dose disturbs the workings of the mind, the operation/rational/ability to live a normal life, which is the purpose of the mind, then I would say heroin is worse.
I would assume the amount of dopamine a drug releases is directly related to its ability to disrupt someones life.
It depends on the definition of "worse". If cell death over time, then maybe alcohol is worse. If it's how much a recreational/entertaining dose disturbs the workings of the mind, the operation/rational/ability to live a normal life, which is the purpose of the mind, then I would say heroin is worse.
I would assume the amount of dopamine a drug releases is directly related to its ability to disrupt someones life.
> Arguably SF’s lack of police response enables continued drug abuse and homelessness.
You want to arrest people for being homeless?
You want to arrest people for being homeless?
When you’ve got a Head of Homeless Services who see the homeless as a part of class warfare you realize they don’t want the problem fixed. They’re fighting capitalism by making the problem bigger, not smaller.
“Why do they do it? Radical anti-system ideology. “There’s a San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness hat which says, ‘Coalition on Homelessness: On The Frontlines of Class Warfare,’” said the insider. “They feel like they’re fighting class warfare. They tell people to not take shelter.””
https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/san-francisco-ho...
“Why do they do it? Radical anti-system ideology. “There’s a San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness hat which says, ‘Coalition on Homelessness: On The Frontlines of Class Warfare,’” said the insider. “They feel like they’re fighting class warfare. They tell people to not take shelter.””
https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/san-francisco-ho...
If you're like some of my older relatives, people choose to become "beggars" because they "want something for nothing" and would rather do that than work a job and live in stable accommodation.
When I was a kid I met some new friends on a camping trip. Their grandparents were rolling in a nice trailer, had nice fishing gear, etc. One day I walked over to their campsite to invite the kids to play, and accidentally overheard them talking about making the kids put on ratty clothes so they could go begging, with the kids complaining.
Later in life I was a missionary, and we saw a dude in homeless attire get out of a nice Mercedes. He saw us as well and told us his story about making bank begging in front of a bank, showed us the $$$ suits stashed in his trunk, told us about his high end "compound" where he lived.
Then of course there was the guy who would block the sidewalk in front of a previous workplace in SF and harass any people passing by who didn't give him money.
There are many cases of people either straight up abusing the system, or acting in ways that will destroy the system.
The more of this there is -- the visible, abusive begging and taking over of shared public spaces -- the less empathy people will have for the invisible homeless who aren't causing trouble and will actually benefit from help.
Later in life I was a missionary, and we saw a dude in homeless attire get out of a nice Mercedes. He saw us as well and told us his story about making bank begging in front of a bank, showed us the $$$ suits stashed in his trunk, told us about his high end "compound" where he lived.
Then of course there was the guy who would block the sidewalk in front of a previous workplace in SF and harass any people passing by who didn't give him money.
There are many cases of people either straight up abusing the system, or acting in ways that will destroy the system.
The more of this there is -- the visible, abusive begging and taking over of shared public spaces -- the less empathy people will have for the invisible homeless who aren't causing trouble and will actually benefit from help.
In Austin Texas when they legalized urban camping the short term effect was the homeless shelters and transitional housing programs cleared out in favor of camping in the posh downtown parks. There was a sudden increase in young rastafarian looking white kids living on the streets. When the ban was reinstated all those newcomers just melted away to wherever they came from.
Didn't seem like that bad of a life while it lasted, being in the tourist areas crime was never bad enough to be afraid for your safety, you had bleeding heart church groups that would regularly come by the camps to hand out food and clothing. All the while you can sell and doing drugs in the open.
Didn't seem like that bad of a life while it lasted, being in the tourist areas crime was never bad enough to be afraid for your safety, you had bleeding heart church groups that would regularly come by the camps to hand out food and clothing. All the while you can sell and doing drugs in the open.
Or you could consider that if camping in "posh downtown parks" being legal was enough to make that better than the life they already had, perhaps that is a clue to social problems that you just didn't see before because it just wasn't out on the streets in front of your eyes.
> just melted away to wherever they came from
out of sight out of mind
out of sight out of mind
Option 1) Upgrade the security on the containers
Option 2) Re-work society from the ground up to eliminate any incentive for burglary
It is no wonder why folks are drawn more to Option 1, which is about a bajillion times more approachable, but which doesn't preclude also working on Option 2 at the same time.
Option 2) Re-work society from the ground up to eliminate any incentive for burglary
It is no wonder why folks are drawn more to Option 1, which is about a bajillion times more approachable, but which doesn't preclude also working on Option 2 at the same time.
I want to caveat this whole thing by saying that I'm not a supporter of abolishing the police in case someone thinks I want to take funding away from law enforcement.
"It is no wonder why folks are drawn more to Option 1, which is about a bajillion times more approachable, but which doesn't preclude also working on Option 2 at the same time."
I think it does. Option 1 solutions of the world often mitigate the visible problems like whack-a-mole. It reinforces the effectiveness of option 1. It also creates a whole system that ends up protecting itself.
Lets say you hire 100k people to start fighting thefts. The underlying problems that produces thieves are around, so they continue to steal. Option 2 supporters say "Fund social safety nets." Option 1 supporters say theft has gone down 50%, hire more crime fighters. The thief catchers say "Protect our jobs." More money goes into fighting crime and not social safety nets.
At least with regards to crime, we've been at it far too long to know what works and what doesn't. Crime reduction is far more correlated with social stability than increased law enforcement.
"It is no wonder why folks are drawn more to Option 1, which is about a bajillion times more approachable, but which doesn't preclude also working on Option 2 at the same time."
I think it does. Option 1 solutions of the world often mitigate the visible problems like whack-a-mole. It reinforces the effectiveness of option 1. It also creates a whole system that ends up protecting itself.
Lets say you hire 100k people to start fighting thefts. The underlying problems that produces thieves are around, so they continue to steal. Option 2 supporters say "Fund social safety nets." Option 1 supporters say theft has gone down 50%, hire more crime fighters. The thief catchers say "Protect our jobs." More money goes into fighting crime and not social safety nets.
At least with regards to crime, we've been at it far too long to know what works and what doesn't. Crime reduction is far more correlated with social stability than increased law enforcement.
I think you're correct to a degree that when we choose Option 1 then it makes Option 2 less urgent.
But! Usually Option 1 is much less efficient long-term than Option 2, so – as long as we're both talking theoretically here – then theoretically the entity that is footing the bill for the 100k security force would see how freaking expensive it is and would advocate with a loud voice for Option 2 to get implemented as soon as possible.
But! Usually Option 1 is much less efficient long-term than Option 2, so – as long as we're both talking theoretically here – then theoretically the entity that is footing the bill for the 100k security force would see how freaking expensive it is and would advocate with a loud voice for Option 2 to get implemented as soon as possible.
Wow I wonder why the climate is dying. No way is the desire to take the easy way out related
/s
/s
What alternative strategy exactly are you suggesting that individual entities take which solves the problem? This reminds me of the rats from Meditations on Moloch [1]:
> In fact, it’s not just art. Any sect at all that is leaner, meaner, and more survivalist than the mainstream will eventually take over. If one sect of rats altruistically decides to limit its offspring to two per couple in order to decrease overpopulation, that sect will die out, swarmed out of existence by its more numerous enemies. If one sect of rats starts practicing cannibalism, and finds it gives them an advantage over their fellows, it will eventually take over and reach fixation.
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
> In fact, it’s not just art. Any sect at all that is leaner, meaner, and more survivalist than the mainstream will eventually take over. If one sect of rats altruistically decides to limit its offspring to two per couple in order to decrease overpopulation, that sect will die out, swarmed out of existence by its more numerous enemies. If one sect of rats starts practicing cannibalism, and finds it gives them an advantage over their fellows, it will eventually take over and reach fixation.
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
For one we could stop electing idiots who only care about enriching themselves and maintaining the broken power structure
The problem is that literally every single voter in America nods furiously at this statement.... but only about their guy
Personally I think they're all in that boat. No US representatives have impressed me
Not to mention politicians lie to get elected anyhow. They all make empty bullshit promises, so even if they did offer something impressive its doubtful any of them would or could follow through. The fact that they want to stay in power means they keep lying or misrepresenting things in order to keep the votes flowing in
Not to mention politicians lie to get elected anyhow. They all make empty bullshit promises, so even if they did offer something impressive its doubtful any of them would or could follow through. The fact that they want to stay in power means they keep lying or misrepresenting things in order to keep the votes flowing in
Option 1 is also attractive because it has a ready-made business model attached. Invent more doohickeys, buy and sell more doohickeys, install said doohickeys. If it actually works almost becomes a peripheral question.
Option 2 is long term, complicated, mostly requires buy in from several levels of underfunded state agencies. The private sector might pick up some crumbs.
Additionally, the people who make these decisions are probably pretty happy with the way that society is configured. Package theft is just a cost of doing business where the benefits are obviously enormous.
Option 2 is long term, complicated, mostly requires buy in from several levels of underfunded state agencies. The private sector might pick up some crumbs.
Additionally, the people who make these decisions are probably pretty happy with the way that society is configured. Package theft is just a cost of doing business where the benefits are obviously enormous.
My thoughts exactly.
This mindset is present in so many aspects of human society. For instance, drug addiction. Up until recently, people would typically ask "how do we stop people getting access to drugs" instead of "why do people do this".
This mindset is present in so many aspects of human society. For instance, drug addiction. Up until recently, people would typically ask "how do we stop people getting access to drugs" instead of "why do people do this".
Fixing this is a two part issue. One, we cannot get rid of physical security, as everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their property.
Two, the way to prevent crime from happening is to make people feel in the heart and soul that crime is morally wrong and destructive for the community around them. This is not instinctual human behavior. For those who learn this and live this, great. For those who don't, see option #1.
Two, the way to prevent crime from happening is to make people feel in the heart and soul that crime is morally wrong and destructive for the community around them. This is not instinctual human behavior. For those who learn this and live this, great. For those who don't, see option #1.
You want to know why I don't steal? It's because I don't have to. I have sufficient security of income and opportunity that it's not necessary.
I'm not bragging, though, what I'm getting at is that you're missing a huge part of why people steal - maybe even the largest part: because they feel they have to survive, or because it's okay because society is stacked against them.
This is what above was talking about when talking about fixing root causes. If you can ensure that people have shelter, food, safety, security, and belonging, you'll generally find that you don't need to _morally re-educate_ them, they won't have the impetus to steal.
I'm not bragging, though, what I'm getting at is that you're missing a huge part of why people steal - maybe even the largest part: because they feel they have to survive, or because it's okay because society is stacked against them.
This is what above was talking about when talking about fixing root causes. If you can ensure that people have shelter, food, safety, security, and belonging, you'll generally find that you don't need to _morally re-educate_ them, they won't have the impetus to steal.
I live in a 3-rd world country that has like 40 times less GDP per capita than the United States. The vast majority of our people work in the fields growing crops and are much poorer than the poorest communities in the US. Our people have to survive, like for real. By your logic, theft, crime, murders and robberies should be rampant in my country because they “have to”. But my country is much safer in that regard that the US. Because we don’t “have to”. People in need do whatever they can to find a job. Those who can’t find a job, they go to Russia and find a job there. In no way in our culture it is considered acceptable to steal even if you “have to”. People are not animals. Social good, social relationships, morals, good parenting and family values are real things.
I’m not talking about those incapable to work, of course. Funny thing is, our government gives shelter to such people, and they don’t live in the streets as well.
United States is a paradoxical country.
I’m not talking about those incapable to work, of course. Funny thing is, our government gives shelter to such people, and they don’t live in the streets as well.
United States is a paradoxical country.
Imo the comment you’re replying to is a kind of progressive left-wing university faculty lounge flavor of upper middle class politics and is not representative of the vast majority of Americans (but is overrepresented online).
I’d suspect most Americans (across the political spectrum) would see these train robberies and think “these people should go to jail”, rather than moralizing about why it’s not their fault.
I’d suspect most Americans (across the political spectrum) would see these train robberies and think “these people should go to jail”, rather than moralizing about why it’s not their fault.
> I’d suspect most Americans (across the political spectrum) would see these train robberies and think “these people should go to jail”, rather than moralizing about why it’s not their fault.
Jail isn't some magical free solution to your crime problems.
Would Americans still be so eager to imprison someone if they knew that the cost to incarcerate someone is ~$36k/yr? [1]
The government defines poverty as $12k/yr for individuals [2], which is three times less than the annual cost to incarcerate someone!
Is imprisoning someone at the taxpayer cost of ~$36k/yr a sustainable model?
At what point does America have a conversation about the cost of imprisonment versus the alternatives like raising the poverty line, raising minimum wage, or implementing social programs?
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09...
[2] https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/povert...
Jail isn't some magical free solution to your crime problems.
Would Americans still be so eager to imprison someone if they knew that the cost to incarcerate someone is ~$36k/yr? [1]
The government defines poverty as $12k/yr for individuals [2], which is three times less than the annual cost to incarcerate someone!
Is imprisoning someone at the taxpayer cost of ~$36k/yr a sustainable model?
At what point does America have a conversation about the cost of imprisonment versus the alternatives like raising the poverty line, raising minimum wage, or implementing social programs?
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09...
[2] https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/povert...
You can advocate for policy that works to improve things that lead to increased crime and be strict about enforcing the law when crime occurs. While this doesn't necessarily fit cleanly into existing partisan politics, it is possible.
Excusing crime because of these other things I think is patronizing to the majority of poor people that are not criminals. It's also a luxury belief imo in that the majority of victims are ethical people in poor communities getting hurt by the criminals who mostly target them (which is why you see a lot of data in poor communities asking for increased policing).
I'd guess it's a view formed from a lack of interaction with the people committing these crimes (in addition to the victims) too. Anyone can rationalize criminal behavior and make it not their fault. I don't have much tolerance for this and don't think society should really either. Discretion exists and context does matter, but people have agency and are responsible for the choices they make.
Excusing crime because of these other things I think is patronizing to the majority of poor people that are not criminals. It's also a luxury belief imo in that the majority of victims are ethical people in poor communities getting hurt by the criminals who mostly target them (which is why you see a lot of data in poor communities asking for increased policing).
I'd guess it's a view formed from a lack of interaction with the people committing these crimes (in addition to the victims) too. Anyone can rationalize criminal behavior and make it not their fault. I don't have much tolerance for this and don't think society should really either. Discretion exists and context does matter, but people have agency and are responsible for the choices they make.
What is the cost of not imprisoning criminals? How much economic damage is caused by shutting down stores that keep getting looted?
Yes, literally still imprison the people committing these crimes.
prisons create jobs while handouts incentivize poverty.
Yes, that was the point of the original post. The further point was that this idea is entirely counterproductive.
You missed half of parent logic.
>it's okay because society is stacked against them.
If you can't find a job in the US, you won't go to another country to find one. After all, you're already in the "best country in the world".
The streets are accepted as the home of failed people (but only if we can't see them).
Medical care is provided only to people who can pay for it. That's only fair.
Also racism was solved with Obama, so just pull yourself by your bootstrap like everyone else.
Just work multiple jobs if you can't afford rent, maybe then you'll save enough to pay for education and get a higher wage job or start your own business.
/s
>it's okay because society is stacked against them.
If you can't find a job in the US, you won't go to another country to find one. After all, you're already in the "best country in the world".
The streets are accepted as the home of failed people (but only if we can't see them).
Medical care is provided only to people who can pay for it. That's only fair.
Also racism was solved with Obama, so just pull yourself by your bootstrap like everyone else.
Just work multiple jobs if you can't afford rent, maybe then you'll save enough to pay for education and get a higher wage job or start your own business.
/s
There are a lot of poor people who are not thieves.
I’ve always felt this framing condescends to them. Sure, there’s certainly more incentive to steal at the academic extremes (bread for your starving family), but people raiding trains for packages is something else.
There should be police response to this, and people doing it should get charged.
I’ve always felt this framing condescends to them. Sure, there’s certainly more incentive to steal at the academic extremes (bread for your starving family), but people raiding trains for packages is something else.
There should be police response to this, and people doing it should get charged.
I don’t see anybody arguing that people doing this shouldn’t get charged.
I do read people (rightfully, IMO) claiming that societal changes can significantly decrease the number of people doing this.
I don’t believe USA has so many people in prison because its population _is_ more criminal than that of other countries.
I do read people (rightfully, IMO) claiming that societal changes can significantly decrease the number of people doing this.
I don’t believe USA has so many people in prison because its population _is_ more criminal than that of other countries.
> I don’t believe USA has so many people in prison because its population _is_ more criminal than that of other countries.
I do. I’ve lived in some foreign countries and have come to realize that culture plays just as much if not more of a role in crime as material conditions. America has some toxic aspects to our culture that contribute to our population being more likely to commit crimes. We are hyper individualist, and more violent across all socioeconomic levels.
I do. I’ve lived in some foreign countries and have come to realize that culture plays just as much if not more of a role in crime as material conditions. America has some toxic aspects to our culture that contribute to our population being more likely to commit crimes. We are hyper individualist, and more violent across all socioeconomic levels.
I think we agree. I wasn’t clear enough, but I wrote the underscores in “its population _is_ more criminal” to implicitly contrast it with “its population _behaves_ more criminal”. It certainly does the latter, but that doesn’t imply the former.
Simplifying things, the USA tends to think that all people who _do_ crimes _are_ criminals and, hence, should be locked up in order to decrease the amount of crime, while other countries think circumstances may have made them perform crimes, and changing circumstances may be the best way to decrease crime because it’s cheaper and/or leads to a happier population.
(In general, I think (again simplifying things), the USA prefers sending in the cavalry to save the day over doing things to prevent the need for a cavalry. You see that in infrastructure maintenance, reactions to natural disasters, and in the way it does diplomacy in the middle east, too. California is somewhat of an exception there. It invests heavily preparing for the big one)
Simplifying things, the USA tends to think that all people who _do_ crimes _are_ criminals and, hence, should be locked up in order to decrease the amount of crime, while other countries think circumstances may have made them perform crimes, and changing circumstances may be the best way to decrease crime because it’s cheaper and/or leads to a happier population.
(In general, I think (again simplifying things), the USA prefers sending in the cavalry to save the day over doing things to prevent the need for a cavalry. You see that in infrastructure maintenance, reactions to natural disasters, and in the way it does diplomacy in the middle east, too. California is somewhat of an exception there. It invests heavily preparing for the big one)
> "I don’t see anybody arguing that people doing this shouldn’t get charged."
This comment is basically arguing that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29932479
They frame it a little indirectly, but it's the underlying core of their point.
You can advocate for policy that reduces crime while still enforcing laws against criminals and not excusing the criminal behavior.
This comment is basically arguing that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29932479
They frame it a little indirectly, but it's the underlying core of their point.
You can advocate for policy that reduces crime while still enforcing laws against criminals and not excusing the criminal behavior.
I don’t see that claiming anything about whether to punish people who commit crimes. IMO, it argues that keeping people out of jail by making it easier for them to not perform crimes is better for everyone.
Even if it does, I didn’t see that comment when I wrote mine. HN currently shows my comment as 10 hours old, the one you mention as 9, so I also think I couldn’t have seen it.
Comment numbers also support that observation (29932220 < 29932479)
Even if it does, I didn’t see that comment when I wrote mine. HN currently shows my comment as 10 hours old, the one you mention as 9, so I also think I couldn’t have seen it.
Comment numbers also support that observation (29932220 < 29932479)
What you're saying is, if the crooks have their basic necessities fulfilled, they would become politicians and CEO's instead of thieves?
Only half joking. You're right that you can fix 90% of crimes your way. But there is a group of people that, for some reason, just want to see the world burn or feel the power to make others miserable. We need to deal with them somehow.
Only half joking. You're right that you can fix 90% of crimes your way. But there is a group of people that, for some reason, just want to see the world burn or feel the power to make others miserable. We need to deal with them somehow.
Sure, but the US probably doesn’t need to have (one of the?) highest prison populations per capita in the world.
Respect for society, or lack thereof, happens at all levels. People partying and cheating their way through college, or running billion dollar ponzi schemes, aren't doing so because they have to survive, but the root cause is the same.
Are you under the impression that white collar crime doesn’t exist and there’s never been anyone above the poverty line to commit theft or fraud?
One doesn’t need to be impoverished to steal. Some subset of individuals will always be driven to obtain “more”, even if through illicit means.
One doesn’t need to be impoverished to steal. Some subset of individuals will always be driven to obtain “more”, even if through illicit means.
[deleted]
The baseline wage for people able-bodied enough to raid a train is $32K/year in Southern California.
> get rid of physical security, as everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their property.
This kind of individual-first-thinking is probably one of the main reasons why we see pictures like in OP in the first place.
This kind of individual-first-thinking is probably one of the main reasons why we see pictures like in OP in the first place.
What do you propose should happen if someone breaks into your house with a baseball bat? Call the police and wait for them to arrive? Speak politely to the intruder?
I'm not saying everyone has the right to bomb Times Square. But I am saying that the "individual", which some people are asserting to be a taboo idea, can use force to have a chance at preserving their life within their private residence.
I'm not saying everyone has the right to bomb Times Square. But I am saying that the "individual", which some people are asserting to be a taboo idea, can use force to have a chance at preserving their life within their private residence.
> everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their property.
To be clear, this is a political ideal of the Roman Empire that has influenced much of modern civlisation, it's not an inevitable state of humanity.
To be clear, this is a political ideal of the Roman Empire that has influenced much of modern civlisation, it's not an inevitable state of humanity.
The right to protect oneself and one’s property goes at least as far back as the Code of Hammurabi. Every ancient civilization from Babylon to Tenochtitlan had some variation of this idea. It is practically the definition of civilization itself.
But unless I've misunderstood Graeber, the idea entered modern jurisprudence and took its recogniseable form from the Roman Empire. In other words, it either looked considerably different in civilisations like Babylon and Tenochtitian, or there's a historic gap of weaker property enforcement between those civilisations and ours.
I haven’t read any of David Graeber’s books. Your comment doesn’t make his thesis clear, but I do know what’s written in the Code of Hammurabi:
“If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.”
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Codex_Hammurabi_(King_trans...
Likewise in pre-Columbian Mexico, as per the Florentine Codex:
“It was a crime to light a fire in the woods without permission, to cut down trees, to move boundary-markers, to take game from another man’s hunting trap and to steal crops from the fields. All these were crimes that could be punished by death.”
https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/ask-experts/which-were-t...
“If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.”
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Codex_Hammurabi_(King_trans...
Likewise in pre-Columbian Mexico, as per the Florentine Codex:
“It was a crime to light a fire in the woods without permission, to cut down trees, to move boundary-markers, to take game from another man’s hunting trap and to steal crops from the fields. All these were crimes that could be punished by death.”
https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/ask-experts/which-were-t...
The idea that an individual has "[the] right to protect oneself and one’s property" is fundamentally inconsistent with the existence of slavery throughout most of humanity's history.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Firstly, I think it's interesting and very American-centric that people disparage this thinking and believe it is an American thing. This is very normal in large parts of the world. Go to the Philippines and security guards are regularly armed -- search the internet and the first photo has two men with pump action shotguns guarding a McDonalds. Go to Thailand and see people put up big walls around their property with spikes and broken glass and barbed wire around the top. Go to France and police regularly patrol with assault rifles (real ones, not semiautomatic painted black). Go to Mexico and people cement bars in front of their windows. Go to the Middle East, Africa, South America, the subcontinent.
And what you see in these coastal California cities is a result of this thinking, that it's always something else to blame and people should feel guilty for wanting their property to be secured or offenders punished or deterred.
And it's not nearly so simple as you say. Easy to steal or low consequences of stealing absolutely contributes to things being stolen. If one in every 4-5 container has been burglarized, surely there's a good argument things need to be made a bit more secure sitting around handwringing about the state of society and admonishing anybody who doesn't sympathize with the criminals certainly won't solve it, as California has demonstrated.
It's not that there aren't other factors that could be improved on a societal level to reduce this kind of crime, to be clear I'm not arguing that.
> I walked around last year, in an opera house, public building, no one in sight, empty building, unlocked doors, there were paintings on the walls, and I identified audio equipment for at least $10k, and it was not unlocked by mistake. Then it struck me, that we've done well in society when we can have this.
Must be nice to be so privileged. You know who suffers the most from street crimes, burglaries, and that kind of thing? It's poor people. Petty criminals know the police will descend on them like a ton of bricks if they went and started robbing rich people places. Just because you might not see police everywhere does not mean it is not protected by the threat of violence and incarceration.
And what you see in these coastal California cities is a result of this thinking, that it's always something else to blame and people should feel guilty for wanting their property to be secured or offenders punished or deterred.
And it's not nearly so simple as you say. Easy to steal or low consequences of stealing absolutely contributes to things being stolen. If one in every 4-5 container has been burglarized, surely there's a good argument things need to be made a bit more secure sitting around handwringing about the state of society and admonishing anybody who doesn't sympathize with the criminals certainly won't solve it, as California has demonstrated.
It's not that there aren't other factors that could be improved on a societal level to reduce this kind of crime, to be clear I'm not arguing that.
> I walked around last year, in an opera house, public building, no one in sight, empty building, unlocked doors, there were paintings on the walls, and I identified audio equipment for at least $10k, and it was not unlocked by mistake. Then it struck me, that we've done well in society when we can have this.
Must be nice to be so privileged. You know who suffers the most from street crimes, burglaries, and that kind of thing? It's poor people. Petty criminals know the police will descend on them like a ton of bricks if they went and started robbing rich people places. Just because you might not see police everywhere does not mean it is not protected by the threat of violence and incarceration.
> I think this is an interesting perspective, it's very "American", it's like it has been accepted by these commenters that rampant thievery is a perfectly natural part of life and so, must be worked around rather than solved.
what do you mean? death penalty ... solved!
what do you mean? death penalty ... solved!
Not solved. Then instead of sneaky thieves who run away, you get armed heists willing to kill cops and civilians to avoid getting busted.
to stop a bad guy with a gun it takes a good guy with a gun ... more guns - solved!
The cause is the same as it always has been: it is easier for some people to get to the desired standard of living by stealing/other crime than by working.
Why crime us going up? Because of higher desired standard (every body needs an iPhone, brand name shoes and hats), more difficulty with earning a wage (largely, difficulty getting a job at all) and decreased difficulty in crime (defunding police, more aesily available opportunities to steal, etc).
For well-off people it is easier to earn their standard by earning money by work than by stealing. Or they have more comfortable ways of stealing than haulig a paltry 10k in av equipment...
I wish i could be an idealist and to believe in a world where every one is happy with what they've got. But that's a utopia. Humans will always crave to have more than each other ad will steal, loot, defraud, do anything to get there.
Lock your trains well.
Why crime us going up? Because of higher desired standard (every body needs an iPhone, brand name shoes and hats), more difficulty with earning a wage (largely, difficulty getting a job at all) and decreased difficulty in crime (defunding police, more aesily available opportunities to steal, etc).
For well-off people it is easier to earn their standard by earning money by work than by stealing. Or they have more comfortable ways of stealing than haulig a paltry 10k in av equipment...
I wish i could be an idealist and to believe in a world where every one is happy with what they've got. But that's a utopia. Humans will always crave to have more than each other ad will steal, loot, defraud, do anything to get there.
Lock your trains well.
When risking getting caught stealing is more attractive than working then it's safe to say the working opportunities for those people aren't worth almost anything.
People take the easier option. You choose "lock your trains well" despite knowing the answer will be "crack those locks well" because it was the easy answer. The view is simple. Eventually the train will be a rolling mountain of steel protected by an army. Your fishing lure will cost an arm and a leg because protection costs are up. And the thieves will just be relegated to do slave work (the work that shouldn't exist in those conditions but society was too busy locking the train well to bother protecting its most vulnerable members) or starve because those are the only options on the table.
People take the easier option. You choose "lock your trains well" despite knowing the answer will be "crack those locks well" because it was the easy answer. The view is simple. Eventually the train will be a rolling mountain of steel protected by an army. Your fishing lure will cost an arm and a leg because protection costs are up. And the thieves will just be relegated to do slave work (the work that shouldn't exist in those conditions but society was too busy locking the train well to bother protecting its most vulnerable members) or starve because those are the only options on the table.
These types of crimes are generally opportunistic. Opportunistic crimes are committed by people who literally don't think of any future, they don't see any risk, only the chance of a reward. Prison is not on their mind. Similar types of crime would be most house burglaries where entrance is easy, pick pocketing and street mugging.
For house burglary the way to deter opportunistic criminals is to harden down the house just a little bit. Lock doors, close windows.
Often drugs is the driving factor. I notice that out of 207 comments in this thread, only 4 including this one mention drugs.
(I used to work in a criminology research office)
For house burglary the way to deter opportunistic criminals is to harden down the house just a little bit. Lock doors, close windows.
Often drugs is the driving factor. I notice that out of 207 comments in this thread, only 4 including this one mention drugs.
(I used to work in a criminology research office)
[deleted]
But think about that, in your average day, how many opportunities did you have to steal or otherwise break the law. I'm guessing, A LOT, and how many did you take advantage of? (I speculate, none, because your standard of living is such that it's not an attractive option to you).
> When risking getting caught stealing is more attractive than working then it's safe to say the working opportunities for those people aren't worth almost anything.
That assumes thieves are rational actors capable of assessing risks at least somewhat accurately. Often times (the vast majority of times, even) they are not.
It's also worth bringing up that certain American subcultures glorify criminals. The criminal lifestyle is seen as glamorous by a large number of people, while honest labor is just dull, whether it pays enough or not.
That assumes thieves are rational actors capable of assessing risks at least somewhat accurately. Often times (the vast majority of times, even) they are not.
It's also worth bringing up that certain American subcultures glorify criminals. The criminal lifestyle is seen as glamorous by a large number of people, while honest labor is just dull, whether it pays enough or not.
<<It's also worth bringing up that certain American subcultures glorify criminals. The criminal lifestyle is seen as glamorous by a large number of people, while honest labor is just dull, whether it pays enough or not.
It probably is not the main driver, but it is hard to discount it as a factor. Another interesting archetype is one man going solo against a corrupt system ( usually guns are involved ). You could reasonably argue that US populace is conditioned for it and then people are all surprised when people actually act out on those early imprints.
It probably is not the main driver, but it is hard to discount it as a factor. Another interesting archetype is one man going solo against a corrupt system ( usually guns are involved ). You could reasonably argue that US populace is conditioned for it and then people are all surprised when people actually act out on those early imprints.
I think this is a fundamental attribution error... You're saying the person _is_ a thief, whereas I would say the person is _committing_ thievery. In the first case, it's the persons nature and no change in incentives would dissuade them. In the second, if you change the incentives so that thievery is less attractive (with its inherent risks) than just working for a good wage, the behavior would vanish.
_People committing thievery_ more often than not aren’t rational actors capable of assessing risks at least somewhat accurately. There, exact same argument with a term you prefer.
I am reminded of this from acoup.blog
"They are poor, not stupid"
He was commenting on the risk decisions of farmers throughout history. It would be sensible for people to put all their effort into growing surplus of one crop for sale, but then they would be at greater risk of starving under crop failure.
People's choices are affected by their (percevied) risk calculus.
https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they...
"They are poor, not stupid"
He was commenting on the risk decisions of farmers throughout history. It would be sensible for people to put all their effort into growing surplus of one crop for sale, but then they would be at greater risk of starving under crop failure.
People's choices are affected by their (percevied) risk calculus.
https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they...
Hard disagree. The majority probably >95% of _People committing thievery_ will have assessed the risk to reward before doing it otherwise what would be the point? even if just for momentary excitement.
They just have very little to lose if they get caught. The problem is so many people are being pushed out of decent society in terms of rewards for work and wealth increase. you even have people who expect to go to prison at some point in their life simply because of the circumstances for their birth.
Earning a criminal record has an extremely high cost even if you are poor. Actually, especially if you are poor.
> When risking getting caught stealing is more attractive than working then it's safe to say the working opportunities for those people aren't worth almost anything.
Except when these thefts are de-facto decriminalized in Califronia, and police is either defunded or directed not to fight these crimes, the "risk of getting caught" is effectively zero.
That means that unless you start handing out iPhones for free in local malls, the thefts will continue.
Let's stop pretending these thieves are "starving". Starving people don't pull up to a Gucci or Louis Vuitton in a Porsche and casually steal a luxury handbag for their girlfriend.
If all work is slavery to you, how about the people who produced all these iPhones and LV bags?
We're dealing here with people who are happy to steal the products of other people's work, instead of doing any work themselves.
Except when these thefts are de-facto decriminalized in Califronia, and police is either defunded or directed not to fight these crimes, the "risk of getting caught" is effectively zero.
That means that unless you start handing out iPhones for free in local malls, the thefts will continue.
Let's stop pretending these thieves are "starving". Starving people don't pull up to a Gucci or Louis Vuitton in a Porsche and casually steal a luxury handbag for their girlfriend.
If all work is slavery to you, how about the people who produced all these iPhones and LV bags?
We're dealing here with people who are happy to steal the products of other people's work, instead of doing any work themselves.
there has been no meaningful defunding of police in any major metropolitan area in california and no directive to not pursue property crime. police have not pursued property crime for decades. you are regurgitating authoritarian propaganda with no evidence.
California passed a proposition that theft of property under $950 will not be prosecuted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47
That means criminals engaging in such thefts cannot be legally arrested or prosecuted.
And we haven't even started discussing LA's new DA Gascon's aggressive move to decriminalize a very large set of offenses:
https://abc7.com/george-gascon-los-angeles-district-attorney...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47
That means criminals engaging in such thefts cannot be legally arrested or prosecuted.
And we haven't even started discussing LA's new DA Gascon's aggressive move to decriminalize a very large set of offenses:
https://abc7.com/george-gascon-los-angeles-district-attorney...
> no directive to not pursue property crime. police have not pursued property crime for decades
If there's no directive, why is property crime not pursued?
If there's no directive, why is property crime not pursued?
Because it’s work and the cops are lazy? No one’s on their ass to go after it either unless it happens to someone with money or connections.
California passed a a proposition that theft of property under $950 will not be prosecuted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47
No matter how diligent cops are, they cannot do anything about these crimes within the law. Passing such Propositions then blaming cops for rising crime is sinister.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47
No matter how diligent cops are, they cannot do anything about these crimes within the law. Passing such Propositions then blaming cops for rising crime is sinister.
From this article
> It recategorized some nonviolent offenses as misdemeanors, rather than felonies, as they had previously been categorized.
It’s still a crime. Police’s job is to respond to crime. Can you imagine if you were tasked with a job and then just stopped doing it because your thought your boss needed to take it more seriously? Any place I worked you’d get fired.
Especially if you started lying to everyone that your boss made it a rule that the problem can’t be dealt with when in reality you just think the consequences aren’t high enough
> No matter how diligent cops are, they cannot do anything about these crimes within the law
They could patrol the streets and respond to the crime. The court system and prosecutors office decides if it needs to escalate from there. This is the LAPD however so they’re probably too busy forming gangs and engaging in crime themselves
> It recategorized some nonviolent offenses as misdemeanors, rather than felonies, as they had previously been categorized.
It’s still a crime. Police’s job is to respond to crime. Can you imagine if you were tasked with a job and then just stopped doing it because your thought your boss needed to take it more seriously? Any place I worked you’d get fired.
Especially if you started lying to everyone that your boss made it a rule that the problem can’t be dealt with when in reality you just think the consequences aren’t high enough
> No matter how diligent cops are, they cannot do anything about these crimes within the law
They could patrol the streets and respond to the crime. The court system and prosecutors office decides if it needs to escalate from there. This is the LAPD however so they’re probably too busy forming gangs and engaging in crime themselves
a century of propaganda has led everyone to think that the police spend a lot of effort 'solving' crimes, but a cursory look at clearance statistics will reveal otherwise.
to the extent that police are an effective anti-crime tool, it primarily stems from their physical presence (racially profiled harassment) as a deterrent. outside of homicides & some PR-useful drug enforcement, police departments spend most of their time discouraging people from filing police reports after actual crimes, harassing poor people, and meeting traffic citation quotas
to the extent that police are an effective anti-crime tool, it primarily stems from their physical presence (racially profiled harassment) as a deterrent. outside of homicides & some PR-useful drug enforcement, police departments spend most of their time discouraging people from filing police reports after actual crimes, harassing poor people, and meeting traffic citation quotas
[deleted]
did you see the amount of packages that had been opened and littered all over?? I'd say that the risk of getting caught there was extremely low and that desperation had little to do with it and it was more opportunistic.
> Why crime us going up?
It’s not. The long term trend in property crime in the US is down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
It’s not. The long term trend in property crime in the US is down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
Difficulty: people may not even bother reporting minor property crimes anymore, because the police (and, more important, the prosecutors) DGAF.
You might not realise it but you've recreated a famous bit from the news satire "Brass Eye" - a news presenter shows some crime statistics and follows it up with the words "So much for recorded crimes, but crimes we know nothing about are going up as well" and displays this graphic:
https://twitter.com/dannyjeremiah/status/472109093260648450
https://twitter.com/dannyjeremiah/status/472109093260648450
[deleted]
That article hasn't been updated for the massive increase in crime from the past two years.
Crime rates go up when inequality goes up.
Was discussing this with some friends recently. The general agreement was social media has exacerbated inequality. It was always there to a varying degree - but there's a big difference between seeing a movie star or musician flexing expensive clothes and shoes on MTV or in a magazine to seeing Johnny Average who went to your school flexing them on Instagram. One is attainable and "why don't I have this", the other you don't worry about.
Furthermore we seem to have such an easy money culture right now - if you get caught in a crypto or NFT or memestock or whatever bubble on FB or Twitter, 'everyone' is rich with no effort (and they can teach you how for 99$ a month!) - why shouldn't you be rich without working?!
Furthermore we seem to have such an easy money culture right now - if you get caught in a crypto or NFT or memestock or whatever bubble on FB or Twitter, 'everyone' is rich with no effort (and they can teach you how for 99$ a month!) - why shouldn't you be rich without working?!
Do crime rates go up when you stop policing actual crimes?
> Do crime rates go up when you stop policing actual crimes?
No they don't. See all the studies that disprove the "broken windows theory" that tried to prove that crime rates go down when you enforce policing.
https://carder.uk/threads/does-broken-windows-theory-work.11...
No they don't. See all the studies that disprove the "broken windows theory" that tried to prove that crime rates go down when you enforce policing.
https://carder.uk/threads/does-broken-windows-theory-work.11...
The first book to disprove the broken window theory was Bernard Harcourt 's Illusion of Order, published in 2001. The author points out that over the 30 years of the existence of this theory, it has never been empirically confirmed, on the contrary, the available research contradicts it. The theory also relies on arbitrarily defined categories of "order" and "disorder", "law-abiding citizens" and "violators."
The first book to disprove the broken window theory was Bernard Harcourt 's Illusion of Order, published in 2001. The author points out that over the 30 years of the existence of this theory, it has never been empirically confirmed, on the contrary, the available research contradicts it. The theory also relies on arbitrarily defined categories of "order" and "disorder", "law-abiding citizens" and "violators."
First of all, the drop in crime in New York occurred simultaneously with the corresponding process in the entire United States. In another study, Harcourt notes that the drop in crime rates in New York coincided with the end of the crack drug epidemic. Christina Sterbenz adds that this trend has been fueled by declining unemployment (during the 1990s, its rate fell by 40%).
Criminologist Ralph Taylor is sure that socio-economic is a significant factor that affects the crime rate. Returning to the experiment with two cars - in the Bronx initially there was a low level of welfare, and in wealthy Palo Alto, a researcher must intervene in the experiment to provoke vandalism.
The theory of broken windows has also failed to pass the test of a massive social experiment. In 1994, the US government introduced the Moving to Opportunity program, which relocated 4,800 impoverished families to prime locations. The program was implemented in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston and Baltimore. Three quarters of the resettled households were on the brink of poverty, and two thirds of the participants were African American.
According to the theory, in the new environment the level of their involvement in offenses should have, but this did not happen, since the move did not improve their financial situation, but emphasized the social gap with their neighbors.I think the opposite of this (reducing enforcement should not increase crime) has been proven false by Californias Prop 47 [1]. So, I imagine the starting point, where enforcement is then increased, is very important.
1. https://www.ppic.org/publication/the-impact-of-proposition-4...
1. https://www.ppic.org/publication/the-impact-of-proposition-4...
Is crime rate proportional to inequality or poverty?
Since poverty is (at least typically) defined relative to some average those two things are not as disconnected as you may think.
But in general I'd expect crime to be a "least worst option" choice and I seem to remember research to that effect. Although I wouldn't be able to find that now again, so take it with an appropriate amount of salt.
But in general I'd expect crime to be a "least worst option" choice and I seem to remember research to that effect. Although I wouldn't be able to find that now again, so take it with an appropriate amount of salt.
Inequality implies poverty, so this question is pointless.
No, they are orthogonal. A society split between middle class workers and billionaires still has inequality without poverty. A society of 100% poverty has no inequality.
Some people define poverty as being in the lower X percentile of wealth.
> https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07...
"Two commonly used measures are: people in relative low income – living in households with income below 60% of the median in that year; people in absolute low income – living in households with income below 60% of (inflation-adjusted) median income in some base year, usually 2010/11."
This is however a bureaucratic definition of poverty that I don't accept as capturing the everyday meaning, but I thought it might be of interest to mention. I remember being under the poverty line and thinking "this doesn't count. I don't accept that I'm living in poverty." Knowing these technical uses made me regard official-sounding news and reports about 'poverty' quite differently.
(The bottom of the article talks about a group giving a more lay-compatible definition "The Social Metrics Commission (SMC) proposed a new based on the extent to which someone’s resources meet their needs. This accounts for differences among households such as costs of childcare and disability, savings and access to assets." which seems more meaningful if you're interested about absolute standards of living).
> https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07...
"Two commonly used measures are: people in relative low income – living in households with income below 60% of the median in that year; people in absolute low income – living in households with income below 60% of (inflation-adjusted) median income in some base year, usually 2010/11."
This is however a bureaucratic definition of poverty that I don't accept as capturing the everyday meaning, but I thought it might be of interest to mention. I remember being under the poverty line and thinking "this doesn't count. I don't accept that I'm living in poverty." Knowing these technical uses made me regard official-sounding news and reports about 'poverty' quite differently.
(The bottom of the article talks about a group giving a more lay-compatible definition "The Social Metrics Commission (SMC) proposed a new based on the extent to which someone’s resources meet their needs. This accounts for differences among households such as costs of childcare and disability, savings and access to assets." which seems more meaningful if you're interested about absolute standards of living).
That's good to know. I had similar feelings about wealth. At one point my wife and I were in the bottom 10% or lower, because of our student debt. Yeah when we graduated medical and dental school we had pretty negative net worth. But... does it really make sense to claim we had no wealth? Or that someone who made 20k a year with no debt should trade places with us? I think wealth and inequality studies are important, and if they don't address this issue they are misleading, even meaningless statistics.
But that does not actually happen. In practice, inequality means poverty.
No, it's actually only the inequality, not poverty, that correlates with high crime rates.
"Humans" don't do this in Zurich or Tokyo but do it in Haiti and downtown LA. Could it be that context matters?
That is basically a longform way of saying "people will steal if their personal economics makes stealing rational". While extremely true it doesn't give a toehold into the problem to decide what to do next.
The question here is really what specific policies and cultural forces are shaping the economic realities that these people are living in. If nothing else, we should ask why someone isn't having great success hiring a few thick-knuckled train robbers away from their life of crime and running a very profitable security business.
The question here is really what specific policies and cultural forces are shaping the economic realities that these people are living in. If nothing else, we should ask why someone isn't having great success hiring a few thick-knuckled train robbers away from their life of crime and running a very profitable security business.
> Humans will always crave to have more than each other ad will steal, loot, defraud, do anything to get there.
Yes and currently society has many many ways for the privileged to get even more than others than they already have, in ways that are legally accepted even if they’re morally reprehensible. And as long as we don’t change that and make the playing field more even, I don’t think judging petty theft so harshly makes any sense at all.
Yes and currently society has many many ways for the privileged to get even more than others than they already have, in ways that are legally accepted even if they’re morally reprehensible. And as long as we don’t change that and make the playing field more even, I don’t think judging petty theft so harshly makes any sense at all.
When you don't judge theft harshly you actually promote a culture of dishonesty.
It is the cruelest and vilest thing to do to those poor people who actually don't steal.
It is the cruelest and vilest thing to do to those poor people who actually don't steal.
> When you don't judge theft harshly you actually promote a culture of dishonesty.
Yup. I wish we would start doing that.
https://inthesetimes.com/article/walmart-corporations-wage-t...
Yup. I wish we would start doing that.
https://inthesetimes.com/article/walmart-corporations-wage-t...
A scathing new report finds that hundreds of major corporations in the United States are repeat wage-theft offenders — committing the violations and then paying the subsequent fines as part of the cost of doing business.[deleted]
Lazy argument.
Working is always superior to stealing. Your words might try and cast them as morally equivalent, but they arent.
Working is always superior to stealing. Your words might try and cast them as morally equivalent, but they arent.
It's pretty well-established empirically, over long periods and multiple countries, that this is mostly about income inequality. Not about overall wealth, not about new gadgets. Want to reduce theft and (juvenile) violent crime? Than reduce income inequality.
I've seen how tricky participating in society with a cheap android phone can get. Your memory runs out all the time when you try to have apps critical for everyday life, and your privacy is sold to highest bidder. Everything takes more time and is less reliable.
Until we as a society can honestly look at what reasonable amount of well being in information societies looks like, it's tricky to tell those with less what is reasonable to expect of quality of life.
Yes, mimetic desire is a real power too. Is that really what's at play here?
Who has the right to draw the line between basic well being and an utopia?
Until we as a society can honestly look at what reasonable amount of well being in information societies looks like, it's tricky to tell those with less what is reasonable to expect of quality of life.
Yes, mimetic desire is a real power too. Is that really what's at play here?
Who has the right to draw the line between basic well being and an utopia?
I've been using cheap (~150 Euros) chinese Android phones for years now. I have not experienced memory running out (my current one has some 256 GB, I think), and privacy selling is a problem caused by apps, not by the hardware - you'd be surprised the amount of info your average iOS app sells.
This Android vs. iOS thing is not about technical capabilities, it's about elitism - and elitism always breeds jealousy, and thus thievery. Lao Tse knew this in 500 BC: "By not prizing goods hard to get, you will cause the people to cease from robbing and stealing."
This Android vs. iOS thing is not about technical capabilities, it's about elitism - and elitism always breeds jealousy, and thus thievery. Lao Tse knew this in 500 BC: "By not prizing goods hard to get, you will cause the people to cease from robbing and stealing."
As a long time user of both, it seems to me there's a fair amount of elitism on android side too - it's just more branded towards technocratic ableism. I.e. "I can use a device that's difficult to use, so I have competence".
Used iphones are verifiable to be reliable, so there is a good aftermarket for them, as opposed to Android phones. At that point the elitism argument falls conpletely apart.
Used iphones are verifiable to be reliable, so there is a good aftermarket for them, as opposed to Android phones. At that point the elitism argument falls conpletely apart.
Actually, I'll take some of this back. I don't really want to label either one as elitism. Human identity bulding is a natural mechanism.
The point I want to make is that it can and will happen related to phones regardless of the brand. Some people are proud of actual propertiea of the product, others will focus more on the image or ideological aspects.
There's nothing wrong with this as such: humans are good at attaching their identities/personalities to all kinds of external things. This tendency also drives healthy psychological growth and learning when it's in check.
The point I want to make is that it can and will happen related to phones regardless of the brand. Some people are proud of actual propertiea of the product, others will focus more on the image or ideological aspects.
There's nothing wrong with this as such: humans are good at attaching their identities/personalities to all kinds of external things. This tendency also drives healthy psychological growth and learning when it's in check.
The poor most probably aren't using 150 euro phones, and he probably meant RAM more so than storage.
Well, that's the lower end for smartphones these days, and the one I am using has 4GiB of RAM, the same amount the iPhone 13 has. Again, this is not about technical specifications, it's about faux elitism and the problems that come with it.
Comparing RAM on Android and iOS devices is not going to give you any reasonable insight into how well the device runs.
I'm pretty sure most people would prefer a standard of living where they don't need to steal.
> defunding police
Police budgets are, by and large, still increasing in the US.
Police budgets are, by and large, still increasing in the US.
Faced with massive demonstrations over the murder of George Floyd, the Los Angeles City Council took a dramatic and symbolic step last year, cutting $150 million from the Police Department’s budget and promising to put that money into other social services.
As another commenter pointed out, this is not accurate.
Are you saying that the LAPD budget isn’t increasing?
From looking at the budgets from 2014[1], it's increasing. Also the "$150 million" cut figure is the difference between the council approved budget and the mayor's proposed budget, not the difference from the previous year.
In billions of dollars:
2014-2015: $1.338
2015-2016: $1.438
2016-2017: $1.485
2017-2018: $1.578
2018-2019: $1.609
2019-2020: $1.733
2020-2021: $1.721
2021-2022: $1.760
The city also took on $47 million in overtime debt in the year that the budget was cut [2]
[1] https://lacontroller.org/budgets/ [2] https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/la-cut-the-police-budget...
In billions of dollars:
2014-2015: $1.338
2015-2016: $1.438
2016-2017: $1.485
2017-2018: $1.578
2018-2019: $1.609
2019-2020: $1.733
2020-2021: $1.721
2021-2022: $1.760
The city also took on $47 million in overtime debt in the year that the budget was cut [2]
[1] https://lacontroller.org/budgets/ [2] https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/la-cut-the-police-budget...
Is it crime or is protest? We all know Amazon will let its workers die in hurricanes, harass its workers until they commit suicide, not pay their workers a living wage, and all this while the big boss goes flying around in spaceships for fun. I'm sure a lot of the "criminals" rationalize their behavior by knowing that whatever they do it can't ever be as bad as what Amazon does, they're even doing justice by fighting back when no-one else does. I'm sure this is more about being Robin Hood than people being evil to their core.
"The cause is the same as it always has been: it is easier for some people to get to the desired standard of living by stealing/other crime than by working."
This is based on the (imho) wrong assumption that people prefer stealing over working when it's easier. But this is not true, people prefer to work but they need to live and their children need to live. You should remove the necessity to steal by building a social infrastructure that helps struggling people.
The case for this is nicely details in "Human Kind" by Rutger Bregman [0].
[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52879286-humankind
This is based on the (imho) wrong assumption that people prefer stealing over working when it's easier. But this is not true, people prefer to work but they need to live and their children need to live. You should remove the necessity to steal by building a social infrastructure that helps struggling people.
The case for this is nicely details in "Human Kind" by Rutger Bregman [0].
[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52879286-humankind
I see two ways to interpret this
(1) make sure everyone has enough and they won't steal
(2) promote a culture that stealing is unacceptable regardless of your situation
I don't personally believe (1) is sufficient nor will it solve the problem. Most people stealing are not "that" poor. They are not starving etc...
Instead they (we) have a culture that it's acceptable to steal. Even many well to do middle and upper middle class westerners feel like it's a right of passage to steal a few things, to shoplift once in a while, etc...
The places I've lived where theft is low didn't have much absolute poverty but they also had a culture of stealing is wrong almost regardless of your situation.
I have no clue how to promote that culture. it seems an impossible task. I'm confident though that the majority of the issue is culture , not poverty
(1) make sure everyone has enough and they won't steal
(2) promote a culture that stealing is unacceptable regardless of your situation
I don't personally believe (1) is sufficient nor will it solve the problem. Most people stealing are not "that" poor. They are not starving etc...
Instead they (we) have a culture that it's acceptable to steal. Even many well to do middle and upper middle class westerners feel like it's a right of passage to steal a few things, to shoplift once in a while, etc...
The places I've lived where theft is low didn't have much absolute poverty but they also had a culture of stealing is wrong almost regardless of your situation.
I have no clue how to promote that culture. it seems an impossible task. I'm confident though that the majority of the issue is culture , not poverty
Yeah. Folks who say crime is caused by poverty and lack of prospects often in the same breath accuse CEOs of being crooks etc, not seeing the contradiction.
There was a good bit on some Russian blog back in the day. Cops in Russia were very underpaid then, and someone floated the idea that they take bribes for that reason. The response:
"A cop takes bribes because his salary is low. Ok, what should his salary be? Like a minister's? But they say nowadays that ministers also take bribes like there's no tomorrow. Maybe we should make the cop's living standard like Zeus the god of all gods and then he'll stop taking bribes?"
Whether you're rich or poor, if you feel that it's ok to rob people, you'll rob people (in the way that your level affords). And if you hate the idea of robbing people, you won't.
There was a good bit on some Russian blog back in the day. Cops in Russia were very underpaid then, and someone floated the idea that they take bribes for that reason. The response:
"A cop takes bribes because his salary is low. Ok, what should his salary be? Like a minister's? But they say nowadays that ministers also take bribes like there's no tomorrow. Maybe we should make the cop's living standard like Zeus the god of all gods and then he'll stop taking bribes?"
Whether you're rich or poor, if you feel that it's ok to rob people, you'll rob people (in the way that your level affords). And if you hate the idea of robbing people, you won't.
It's quite common on European high streets to see private security guards outside of clothing and electronic stores, whereas that is fairly rare in the states. At least, I can certainly attest to their presence in the UK, Italy, Spain and France.
And I think everyone individually is trying to minimize societal ills like theft. But good luck getting enough people to agree on what is the right path forward.
And I think everyone individually is trying to minimize societal ills like theft. But good luck getting enough people to agree on what is the right path forward.
Yeah, we have public police in front of our stores instead.
We do? I mean...you may see police in front of a store if their beat takes them by it, or you might see a centralized kiosk with a cop in it at a mall or something, but you don't really see security in front of every store like you do in many parts of Europe. Maybe that will change, at least in LA if smash and grabs become popularized
Anecdotally, but this is a metro thing. I've sampled 3 cities and these are big box grocers in... less affluent... high-traffic neighborhoods.
[deleted]
This is very naive.
I love my kids more than I love Pacific Rail Company or Fedex.
As I get older, sure we're secure, but I still worry about money for the mortgage and the kids' college fund.
If there was actually ZERO chance of getting caught because there was ZERO enforcement, I would absolutely steal to make those worries go away.
When I was young and single, I would not have.
I love my kids more than I love Pacific Rail Company or Fedex.
As I get older, sure we're secure, but I still worry about money for the mortgage and the kids' college fund.
If there was actually ZERO chance of getting caught because there was ZERO enforcement, I would absolutely steal to make those worries go away.
When I was young and single, I would not have.
If you think people are stealing because they have no other choice you’re sadly mistaken.
I’m assuming LA is similar to SF - much of the crime is organized. Multi-million dollar operations.
This is a problem because the perception is that law enforcement won’t do anything, so fuck it, why not get easy money. Working and paying taxes like some chump? Nah.
I’m assuming LA is similar to SF - much of the crime is organized. Multi-million dollar operations.
This is a problem because the perception is that law enforcement won’t do anything, so fuck it, why not get easy money. Working and paying taxes like some chump? Nah.
I'm an American. Fundamentally I think we have given up on solving social issues that are a byproduct of a country that valued jobs, those who provide jobs, and cars over stability/culture of any kind.
To solve most of them, it appears A) everybody has to simultaneously change their behavior at once or B) some entity with a lot of resources will end up taking hits until culture changes. We're too deeply divided for A and class divides/corporate-civilian divides prevent anyone from stepping up and doing B.
Since it's too hard we're taking the easy way out into anger, revenge, and apathy--and if you live in a bad area the solution is to make or have enough money to move. The constant mobility mostly driven by job and money chasing makes culture impossible for those who need to work and don't have significant assets--which is most people--and without a culture the tendency to not care about each other tends to win.
Eventually we will run out of room in this country (we always sell out to developers) and we'll have to actually solve problems, but that's probably a good 100 years from now assuming we haven't broken up into separate countries by then.
To solve most of them, it appears A) everybody has to simultaneously change their behavior at once or B) some entity with a lot of resources will end up taking hits until culture changes. We're too deeply divided for A and class divides/corporate-civilian divides prevent anyone from stepping up and doing B.
Since it's too hard we're taking the easy way out into anger, revenge, and apathy--and if you live in a bad area the solution is to make or have enough money to move. The constant mobility mostly driven by job and money chasing makes culture impossible for those who need to work and don't have significant assets--which is most people--and without a culture the tendency to not care about each other tends to win.
Eventually we will run out of room in this country (we always sell out to developers) and we'll have to actually solve problems, but that's probably a good 100 years from now assuming we haven't broken up into separate countries by then.
> Come on, the problem is not that it's easy to steal, the problem is that society has constructed situations for some of its citizens where they for one reason or another do it.
I assume you're talking about poor people. I don't know how much experience you have with lower socio-economic people in the US, but from my experience, most are honest hardworking and industrious. Some are immigrants without a formal education or even language skills that came to this country for opportunity.
It's a little offensive to deny them basic autonomy to not steal and trash a rail-yard. The people that I came across in my life that do petty crime like this are not poor desperate people. They're usually highly anti-social borderline sociopaths. They're organized by informal networks of other people exploiting them. There's organization involved to keep lookout, know when and were to go and how to avoid getting caught. And if you get caught, there is a whole system around that as well. And since they're organized, they are fully aware of the risk-reward tradeoffs. This includes the recent trend of being soft on these kinds of crimes or looking the other way, as you're doing.
Think about the skill you need to pull this off. You need to be young and physically fit, to run from police. You have to be able to keep a lot of information in your head and make snap decisions about what to open, what to keep and what to toss. You have to show up on time and plan. The people doing these heists could easily be employed as warehouse or delivery workers and make an honest, probably even more lucrative living, especially when you consider long term risk of being arrested. They choose not to.
Poor people are not to blame for this savagery.
I assume you're talking about poor people. I don't know how much experience you have with lower socio-economic people in the US, but from my experience, most are honest hardworking and industrious. Some are immigrants without a formal education or even language skills that came to this country for opportunity.
It's a little offensive to deny them basic autonomy to not steal and trash a rail-yard. The people that I came across in my life that do petty crime like this are not poor desperate people. They're usually highly anti-social borderline sociopaths. They're organized by informal networks of other people exploiting them. There's organization involved to keep lookout, know when and were to go and how to avoid getting caught. And if you get caught, there is a whole system around that as well. And since they're organized, they are fully aware of the risk-reward tradeoffs. This includes the recent trend of being soft on these kinds of crimes or looking the other way, as you're doing.
Think about the skill you need to pull this off. You need to be young and physically fit, to run from police. You have to be able to keep a lot of information in your head and make snap decisions about what to open, what to keep and what to toss. You have to show up on time and plan. The people doing these heists could easily be employed as warehouse or delivery workers and make an honest, probably even more lucrative living, especially when you consider long term risk of being arrested. They choose not to.
Poor people are not to blame for this savagery.
While I understand your argument, it ignores the fact that, at scale, there is a non-insignificant chunk of society that is willing to break and bend the rules for personal gain, causing others loss, simply because that's the most direct path for them to obtain what they want. This is, at least in my opinion, exacerbated by the size and the diversity of the US population, and its variety of creeds, affluence levels, ethnic backgrounds, and others. The US is not Iceland, it's not Japan, it's not Finland.
If you increase the base floor of affluence in the whole of society, yes, people stricken by poverty will no longer have to conduct this kind of activity out of desperation, but many, driven by other impulses, will simply move up to a higher class level of antisocial white collar behavior, from scamming investors to conmanship et al. still eventually necessitating the intervention of law enforcement and jail time.
If you take a look at your average prison population, people incarcerated due to poverty-induced despair are only part of the picture. There are plenty of folks in there who, for one reason or another, spanning from genetics to growing up in extremely abusive environments, are not wired to succeed in society, and are in some form a menace to it, and need to be contained in a way that allows non-sociopaths to conduct normal living.
I can't tell you the exact desperation-to-sociopathy ratio of criminal activity, I'm not sure those numbers exist, but my hunch, based on whatever information I've gotten my hands on over the years, is that the sociopath percentage behind this sort of activity is non-trivial and cannot be simply glossed over in the interest of standing up for folks of lesser means.
Before we inject our own biases into this conversation, I would love to see the data, the stats, and understand why the culprits are doing what they're doing. Otherwise we're simply painting our existing moral and political positions onto this canvas with no way of refuting any of the stances. The trite and tedious unfalsifiable personal-responsibility-vs-oppressed-victim-of-circumstances debate that never gets anywhere.
If you increase the base floor of affluence in the whole of society, yes, people stricken by poverty will no longer have to conduct this kind of activity out of desperation, but many, driven by other impulses, will simply move up to a higher class level of antisocial white collar behavior, from scamming investors to conmanship et al. still eventually necessitating the intervention of law enforcement and jail time.
If you take a look at your average prison population, people incarcerated due to poverty-induced despair are only part of the picture. There are plenty of folks in there who, for one reason or another, spanning from genetics to growing up in extremely abusive environments, are not wired to succeed in society, and are in some form a menace to it, and need to be contained in a way that allows non-sociopaths to conduct normal living.
I can't tell you the exact desperation-to-sociopathy ratio of criminal activity, I'm not sure those numbers exist, but my hunch, based on whatever information I've gotten my hands on over the years, is that the sociopath percentage behind this sort of activity is non-trivial and cannot be simply glossed over in the interest of standing up for folks of lesser means.
Before we inject our own biases into this conversation, I would love to see the data, the stats, and understand why the culprits are doing what they're doing. Otherwise we're simply painting our existing moral and political positions onto this canvas with no way of refuting any of the stances. The trite and tedious unfalsifiable personal-responsibility-vs-oppressed-victim-of-circumstances debate that never gets anywhere.
I think it's a plus for society if some criminals go from petty theft to white collar sociapth investor conning CEO. (or more realistically salesman)
Society saves on the need for physical security.
Society saves on the need for physical security.
That's a pro, but now the blast radius of your malfeasance is also larger. Instead of stealing a couple of Amazon packages a day, you can now deprive tens of thousands of people out of their life savings, you can deprive thousands of a medication they might need, you're now able to corrupt law enforcement and officials without any moral qualms and so on.
"Safer" in the short term for the criminal and law enforcement, but overall much more damaging to society and the rule of law.
"Safer" in the short term for the criminal and law enforcement, but overall much more damaging to society and the rule of law.
Positions of power are already taken by people on socio-path (pun intended). So for society nothing changes.
Salesmen already lie. There are already a lot of scammer ceos. People can deal with those by ignoring them. What people can not ignore is gun/knife in their face and a death of a loved one.
Salesmen already lie. There are already a lot of scammer ceos. People can deal with those by ignoring them. What people can not ignore is gun/knife in their face and a death of a loved one.
You make it sound like this is all necessity. I don't know if this is intentional or not.
If it is intentional: Go look at the porch pirate glitterbomb videos and come back and tell me that it is because of necessity (I've only seen one go off in a pawn shop, the rest were people who wanted to improve their own home it seemed.)
Trying to be intellectually honest here I'll note that maybe those videos weren't uploaded because they didn't match the viewpoint he Mark wants to create. Or because he felt pity for them, but I don't think that is the full explanation.
Edit:
> I walked around last year, in an opera house, public building, no one in sight, empty building, unlocked doors, there were paintings on the walls, and I identified audio equipment for at least $10k, and it was not unlocked by mistake. Then it struck me, that we've done well in society when we can have this.
Agree. Note however:
Norway were I live used to be like that (as far as I understand), but isn't anymore (this I do know).
Norway has maybe the best social security in the world.
Clearly there are two things that must be in place here:
- there mustn't be a need to steal to survive
- stealing must also not be accepted
If it is intentional: Go look at the porch pirate glitterbomb videos and come back and tell me that it is because of necessity (I've only seen one go off in a pawn shop, the rest were people who wanted to improve their own home it seemed.)
Trying to be intellectually honest here I'll note that maybe those videos weren't uploaded because they didn't match the viewpoint he Mark wants to create. Or because he felt pity for them, but I don't think that is the full explanation.
Edit:
> I walked around last year, in an opera house, public building, no one in sight, empty building, unlocked doors, there were paintings on the walls, and I identified audio equipment for at least $10k, and it was not unlocked by mistake. Then it struck me, that we've done well in society when we can have this.
Agree. Note however:
Norway were I live used to be like that (as far as I understand), but isn't anymore (this I do know).
Norway has maybe the best social security in the world.
Clearly there are two things that must be in place here:
- there mustn't be a need to steal to survive
- stealing must also not be accepted
> - stealing must also not be accepted
It's a bit more complex than that, in my opinion. This is also about whether people respect/love society.
When you feel connected to society and feel thankful for what it gives to you, you will be much less likely to exhibit antisocial behavior.
In my opinion, this lack of connection to society is caused by
1. The US being a lot harder on its participants than in the Norden countries. This causes people to feel less thankful to it. 2. The division in US politics and media causes people to be disillusioned by society and feel no connection/relation to it.
It's a bit more complex than that, in my opinion. This is also about whether people respect/love society.
When you feel connected to society and feel thankful for what it gives to you, you will be much less likely to exhibit antisocial behavior.
In my opinion, this lack of connection to society is caused by
1. The US being a lot harder on its participants than in the Norden countries. This causes people to feel less thankful to it. 2. The division in US politics and media causes people to be disillusioned by society and feel no connection/relation to it.
Agree to a degree.
What I write about above however is that even in the Nordic countries where everyone has all reason to be thankful people steal a lot.
What I write about above however is that even in the Nordic countries where everyone has all reason to be thankful people steal a lot.
Which people? Since when? Could there be a pattern?
Burglary and shoplifting? Drug abusers mostly these days it seems but also professional thieves from further down in Europe.
Has always been going on, but it feels there has been an increase.
There can absolutely be some patterns.
Has always been going on, but it feels there has been an increase.
There can absolutely be some patterns.
I would say in large part it's because theft is acceptable in a lot of places. When people rob high end retail in CA, or when places decriminalize retail theft under $999. Sometimes people steal out of necessity, most times they steal out of convenience.
Having a strong culture that treats theft as a shameful act and caring for others is what breeds the culture you describe.
Having a strong culture that treats theft as a shameful act and caring for others is what breeds the culture you describe.
Good observation - my first though when reading this was "wow, didn't know this happens in the US, until now I only heard about things like this from third world countries". I mean, sure, crime happens everywhere, but you have to be pretty desperate to do things like this (relatively high risk of injury or getting caught, relatively low chance of finding something really valuable). Then I realized that unfortunately, despite being one of the richest countries in the world, many US citizens have standards of living comparable to a third world country...
If you genuinely believe that the US has standards comparable to the third world, the you've been consuming propaganda on the Internet, I guess from low-quality communities such as Facebook/Twitter/Reddit etc.
These people aren't "desperate", they are opportunists. The situation is the opposite to what you say: there is low risk of getting caught and high chance of finding something valuable.
These people aren't "desperate", they are opportunists. The situation is the opposite to what you say: there is low risk of getting caught and high chance of finding something valuable.
It's the same ordeal with legal firearm ownership versus armed crime. Some people are simply crazy but not recognised as such.
I taken it your machine is connected directly to the internet with no firewall and your admin password is password.
Those who did this are not victims. They're culprits. That must be very clear.
Remember the imagery from recent (any) riots? E.g. the mob plundering a Walmart? Those people are not starving. They are just greedy, uncontrolled and aggressive. They did not steal food. Just expensive electronic entertainment devices.
Human behaviour is very predictable. There will always be a large number of people taking whatever they can get. That's how it is. The failed communism is the proof.
The only thing preventing those people from doing their crime onto society are sanctions.
Remember the imagery from recent (any) riots? E.g. the mob plundering a Walmart? Those people are not starving. They are just greedy, uncontrolled and aggressive. They did not steal food. Just expensive electronic entertainment devices.
Human behaviour is very predictable. There will always be a large number of people taking whatever they can get. That's how it is. The failed communism is the proof.
The only thing preventing those people from doing their crime onto society are sanctions.
>They did not steal food. Just expensive electronic entertainment devices.
During the 2011 London riots, looters consistently avoided bookstores in favor of "shoes, clothes, computers, and plasma televisions". <https://news.yahoo.com/pattern-london-rioters-leaving-bookst...>
During the 2011 London riots, looters consistently avoided bookstores in favor of "shoes, clothes, computers, and plasma televisions". <https://news.yahoo.com/pattern-london-rioters-leaving-bookst...>
They are not victims of the theft, but they can be the product of something (like all of us).
If a society instills the values of "every man for himself" and that patience, hard work and helping a fellow human is for chumps, the result is also predictable when mixed with the right conditions/environment.
Trying to solve a problem by focusing on sanctions (usually called "War On ____") has been proven to fail catastrophically.
If a society instills the values of "every man for himself" and that patience, hard work and helping a fellow human is for chumps, the result is also predictable when mixed with the right conditions/environment.
Trying to solve a problem by focusing on sanctions (usually called "War On ____") has been proven to fail catastrophically.
What society do you live in? I want to look at you with envy while my country continues to sink.
"...and it was not unlocked by mistake.". Gah! Combination of negatives!
We (Americans) don’t solve big problems, just like we don’t deliver justice for big crimes. The rot is deep.
I wonder how American it is. It's illegal to beg in Denmark. It's illegal to sleep rough in Germany. The police will absolutely bother you if they catch you at either.
Exactly. This kind of thing does not happen in a healthy society.
Where was the opera house?
> Like putting locks and security on your home, "Now they won't break into MY home, because the guy next door has less security, so they'll go at him instead".
This is not uniquely American. In the EU so many people by SUVs (despite the impracticality in smaller European streets) “because it’ll make sure I have the benefit in a car crash”. It is technically correct but such an extremely cold statement.
This is not uniquely American. In the EU so many people by SUVs (despite the impracticality in smaller European streets) “because it’ll make sure I have the benefit in a car crash”. It is technically correct but such an extremely cold statement.
You'll have to be more specific than "EU" because I've never seen an American-style SUV in Western Europe. Closest I can get is a crossover SUV like a Mercedes GLA.
> I've never seen an American-style SUV in Western Europe
I was actually thinking about these SUVs this morning, as their were two Cadillac Escalades [0] parked on my block in central Stockholm as I walked my kid to school. The town is *full* of these types of vehicles (there are even full-size Hummers driving around).
The "EU" can't be characterized in this uniform way - the different countries are totally unlike each other in so many respects. Because Sweden is part of Scandinavia, people often think there's a cycling culture here for instance - but that's also totally untrue. The same is true of our gun-crime - with criminal gangs frequently shooting each other on the streets: such a thing was virtually unknown to me throughout the time I lived in central London.
The true picture is way more nuanced than the Europe vs USA binary that people like to imagine.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Escalade
I was actually thinking about these SUVs this morning, as their were two Cadillac Escalades [0] parked on my block in central Stockholm as I walked my kid to school. The town is *full* of these types of vehicles (there are even full-size Hummers driving around).
The "EU" can't be characterized in this uniform way - the different countries are totally unlike each other in so many respects. Because Sweden is part of Scandinavia, people often think there's a cycling culture here for instance - but that's also totally untrue. The same is true of our gun-crime - with criminal gangs frequently shooting each other on the streets: such a thing was virtually unknown to me throughout the time I lived in central London.
The true picture is way more nuanced than the Europe vs USA binary that people like to imagine.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Escalade
I guess it's always a question of perspective. Coming from Germany, there definitely is _more_ of a cycling culture in Sweden than in Germany. The cycling infrastructure is better and better maintained (snow plowing, etc.). Of course that is also a generalization, as the differences can be big within a country as well. (My frame of reference for Sweden is mostly Uppsala)
But the noticeable presence of SUV and even Pickup models I usually associate with the US in Sweden also surprised me. Those are rare in Germany.
But the noticeable presence of SUV and even Pickup models I usually associate with the US in Sweden also surprised me. Those are rare in Germany.
What I've noticed in the UK is that large SUVs are far more common in wealthy areas of cities than they are in rural areas.
In London at least they're often referred to as "Chelsea tractors" (Chelsea being one of the wealthiest parts of London)., and you're entirely correct according to this article[1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/07/stereoty...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/07/stereoty...
I've never seen an American-style SUV in Western Europe.
I see several of them every day here in Sweden. And I saw at least as many last time I was in London.
I see several of them every day here in Sweden. And I saw at least as many last time I was in London.
I've literally never heard this, after having lived in the EU for almost 40 years.
It is a thing in Romania with larger cars like BMW X5 and so on.
That's mostly because it was fairly easy to get a drivers license with bribes up until a few years after joining EU. (until the anti-corruption agency was set up)
Also due to crappy roads and very aggressive drivers in larger cities. Rich people would just buy the larger car to protect children either from their stupidity or other drivers.
That's mostly because it was fairly easy to get a drivers license with bribes up until a few years after joining EU. (until the anti-corruption agency was set up)
Also due to crappy roads and very aggressive drivers in larger cities. Rich people would just buy the larger car to protect children either from their stupidity or other drivers.
I have heard this attitude in Eastern Europe and Russia. Here in Switzerland, nobody cares about the size of the car — road safety is exemplary.
You mean in the US so many people drive SUV. I don’t remember seeing many in europe
This seems like a silly and needlessly anti-American framing. There’s plenty of high profile theft in Europe - more in fact, since the security is so lax:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/world/europe/Picasso-and-...
European “security” has also given us gems like the Brussels and Manchester arena bombings.
I don’t know why people in glass houses insist on throwing so many stones.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/world/europe/Picasso-and-...
European “security” has also given us gems like the Brussels and Manchester arena bombings.
I don’t know why people in glass houses insist on throwing so many stones.
You are confusing high profile art theft in Europe with low profile UPS theft in the US.
The trains are clearly being robbed out of desperation by the poorest citizens. If those citizens lived in the EU, they would have free healthcare, free education, unemployment subsidies and housing. And so they would not be forced to steal our packages.
The trains are clearly being robbed out of desperation by the poorest citizens. If those citizens lived in the EU, they would have free healthcare, free education, unemployment subsidies and housing. And so they would not be forced to steal our packages.
It's not that simple. Look at Sweden. We have all those things and delivery companies have stopped delivering to certain areas due to their trucks being robbed.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/skane/malmobon-sylvias-adr...
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/uppsala/postnord-stoppar-p...
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/skane/malmobon-sylvias-adr...
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/uppsala/postnord-stoppar-p...
PostNord ever delivers things normally? /s
Actually relevant comment but before people say "oh, so it's just this scummy company overblowing things" - PostNord is the de facto postal service in Sweden and owned by the Swedish state.
However, they are also notoriously bad so the joke is spot on.
However, they are also notoriously bad so the joke is spot on.
>The trains are clearly being robbed out of desperation by the poorest citizens.
That isn’t clear to me at all. In Washington DC, for example, much of the recent increase in theft (grand theft auto especially) has been committed by unsupervised juveniles. AFAICT they do it because they’re bored, it’s easy, it’s exciting, and they generally escape punishment. Who’s to say it’s not a similar situation with these train robberies?
That isn’t clear to me at all. In Washington DC, for example, much of the recent increase in theft (grand theft auto especially) has been committed by unsupervised juveniles. AFAICT they do it because they’re bored, it’s easy, it’s exciting, and they generally escape punishment. Who’s to say it’s not a similar situation with these train robberies?
In Denver, we experienced a huge increase in bike theft because a massive crime ring was exporting them to Mexico and then reselling them for thousands. Sometimes crime isn’t desperation or opportunistic (though Denver still has plenty of opportunistic thefts), it can be organized too!
Nobody is "forced" to steal packages.
"The trains are clearly being robbed out of desperation by the poorest citizens." I don't think that's true. I think they are being robbed because it's easy to do so, with a low risk for any consequences. Similarly as to why shoplifting in LA is up.
Start shooting at the thieves and see how fast the train robbery trend reverses.
"The trains are clearly being robbed out of desperation by the poorest citizens." I don't think that's true. I think they are being robbed because it's easy to do so, with a low risk for any consequences. Similarly as to why shoplifting in LA is up.
Start shooting at the thieves and see how fast the train robbery trend reverses.
>I think they are being robbed because it's easy to do so, with a low risk for any consequences. Similarly as to why shoplifting in LA is up.
Ok, then why aren't you robbing or shoplifting if it's so easy and risk-free? Is it because you have too much to lose if you get caught?
My whole point is that if people have a minimal standard of living, the fear of losing it will prevent them from committing crimes much more effectively than some nut shooting at them
Ok, then why aren't you robbing or shoplifting if it's so easy and risk-free? Is it because you have too much to lose if you get caught?
My whole point is that if people have a minimal standard of living, the fear of losing it will prevent them from committing crimes much more effectively than some nut shooting at them
> Is it because you have too much to lose if you get caught?
Absolutely not, risking a first time shoplifting charge is well within my risk tolerance.
I'm not doing it because
1. I find crimes against person or property vile
2. It's not worth it. All things considered, it's probably a pretty abysmal hourly rate.
> My whole point is that if people have a minimal standard of living, the fear of losing it will prevent them from committing crimes much more effectively I agree, however I don't see how it is my fault or why would I have to pay for someone else's minimal standard of living.
Teaching a man how to fish vs giving the man a fish.
I'm not doing it because
1. I find crimes against person or property vile
2. It's not worth it. All things considered, it's probably a pretty abysmal hourly rate.
> My whole point is that if people have a minimal standard of living, the fear of losing it will prevent them from committing crimes much more effectively I agree, however I don't see how it is my fault or why would I have to pay for someone else's minimal standard of living.
Teaching a man how to fish vs giving the man a fish.
>I find crimes against person or property vile
...
>Start shooting at the thieves and see how fast the train robbery trend reverses.
...
>Start shooting at the thieves and see how fast the train robbery trend reverses.
see: stand-your-ground law.
Pretty sure you'd draw that line somewhere. Perhaps it wouldn't be a train, but I can assure you with absolute certainty that there would be a point where you would value your lawfully possessed property over an attacker's life.
Anyway, we kind of went off track (no pun intended), but my initial point was that since you can rob these trains with basically no reprecussions, would it still be true if there was a chance that you might get shot in the process? I'd think not.
Pretty sure you'd draw that line somewhere. Perhaps it wouldn't be a train, but I can assure you with absolute certainty that there would be a point where you would value your lawfully possessed property over an attacker's life.
Anyway, we kind of went off track (no pun intended), but my initial point was that since you can rob these trains with basically no reprecussions, would it still be true if there was a chance that you might get shot in the process? I'd think not.
Because they prioritize preventing the damage to society over their own personal gain. The point is that the decision to commit a crime boils down to putting the individual benefits over the harm being inflicted on others, which is why it is naive to say this kind of theft only happens because people’s needs aren’t met. Not only does this imply that all poor people are committing crimes (how could they not, when their needs aren’t met!), but it also implies that crimes aren’t committed among the non-impoverished population, both of which are clearly false.
>The trains are clearly being robbed out of desperation by the poorest citizens.
Wut? This isn't clear at all. Lots of theft like this or mass retail theft are done by semi-organized crime rings.
Wut? This isn't clear at all. Lots of theft like this or mass retail theft are done by semi-organized crime rings.
LA is turning into District 9
I would expect this kind of pictures from a third world country...
How come no one is incentivized to fix this - protect the trains, prevent this loss of property? Who pays for the stolen goods? I presume it would be the retailers, is it just a drop in the ocean for them?
In some more dystopian movies there were trains crossing vast areas of postapocalyptic hellscape protected by soldiers with machine guns and flamethrowers. In these pictures, the "responsible" just gave up. I find that simiarly dystopic.
How come no one is incentivized to fix this - protect the trains, prevent this loss of property? Who pays for the stolen goods? I presume it would be the retailers, is it just a drop in the ocean for them?
In some more dystopian movies there were trains crossing vast areas of postapocalyptic hellscape protected by soldiers with machine guns and flamethrowers. In these pictures, the "responsible" just gave up. I find that simiarly dystopic.
> I would expect this kind of pictures from a third world country...
By many measures, the US are a third world country. Here's an article from 2014 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/six-ways...
The problem with "winner takes all" culture is that "losers" still have to eat, and you can't jail or shoot them all. Hence, this.
By many measures, the US are a third world country. Here's an article from 2014 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/six-ways...
The problem with "winner takes all" culture is that "losers" still have to eat, and you can't jail or shoot them all. Hence, this.
This kind of blantent theft wouldn't happen in a third world country. The contents of the train would be much more meaningful to the sender and recipients and they'd raise hell with the shipping company over the loss, which would cause the shipping company to hire an army of underpaid security guards as deterrents (if you've spent most of your life in an economy with minimum wage/universal education, you haven't fully experienced the way the global south can point an army of people at the most trivial problems). In US, much of the value of these containers could be restored to the shipper or recipient with shipping insurance or credit card chargebacks. Additionally, higher GDP means these packages (even the medical ones) are just too small an expense to the recipients to rile them up. I have a hard time believing developing country shipping companies can insurance their operations and remain as profitable as US companies can
Once the trains insurance company/fund (or UPS? Amazons?) starts to take a hit, they will respond swiftly with a solution somehow. It'll probably take a few more months of this to hit their bottom line.
Once the trains insurance company/fund (or UPS? Amazons?) starts to take a hit, they will respond swiftly with a solution somehow. It'll probably take a few more months of this to hit their bottom line.
I'm pretty sure Buffett's company, which invests in both Union Pacific and insurance, is incentivized to resolve this.
This photojournalist probably just helped him make a bunch of money by identifying a prime location for an ongoing problem. The fact that we saw it before UP did doesn't mean they aren't incentivized to stop it. It's obviously bad business if their deliveries are missing packages.
This photojournalist probably just helped him make a bunch of money by identifying a prime location for an ongoing problem. The fact that we saw it before UP did doesn't mean they aren't incentivized to stop it. It's obviously bad business if their deliveries are missing packages.
I just can't imagine that the train operator isn't aware of this. Why is it allowed to go on for days / weeks, or even months? If they know where it happens, what's the holdup? Just waiting there in a hiding spot until the perpetrators come and start looting, arrest them, rinse and repeat.
> If they know where it happens, what's the holdup?
As long as sum(value of goods lost) < sum(priced-in value of goods lost/damaged)+sum(expected cost of health/liability/life insurance rate hikes after robbers maim or kill staff), nothing will be done, it would simply be more expensive and risky.
As long as sum(value of goods lost) < sum(priced-in value of goods lost/damaged)+sum(expected cost of health/liability/life insurance rate hikes after robbers maim or kill staff), nothing will be done, it would simply be more expensive and risky.
I think Berkshire Hathaway owns Burlington Northern and not Union Pacific.
I believe they've invested in UP in the past. I don't know how to look up how much.
From 2007:
>A May SEC filing revealed Berkshire owned 10.5 million shares of Union Pacific unp and nearly 6.4 million shares of Norfolk Southern nsc.
>Berkshire omitted those investments from a quarterly summary of its stock holdings filed earlier this month because the SEC allowed the company to keep them confidential, so it's not clear how much Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern stock Berkshire currently owns.
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3550477&page=1
Berkshire's 2022 ownership of UP (if it exists) is less than 1%.[2]
[2] https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?s...
>A May SEC filing revealed Berkshire owned 10.5 million shares of Union Pacific unp and nearly 6.4 million shares of Norfolk Southern nsc.
>Berkshire omitted those investments from a quarterly summary of its stock holdings filed earlier this month because the SEC allowed the company to keep them confidential, so it's not clear how much Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern stock Berkshire currently owns.
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3550477&page=1
Berkshire's 2022 ownership of UP (if it exists) is less than 1%.[2]
[2] https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?s...
I think protecting the train line is just one small aspect of this, what sticks out to me is how desperate people are. They're robbing trains in downtown L.A. now. You can see the skyscrapers.
That's the real dystopia here. Not that they need more armed guards.
That's the real dystopia here. Not that they need more armed guards.
[deleted]
Escape from LA will become a documentary soon.
It's so hard to have this discussion with people that live in California but a lot of the scenes in SF and LA are literally out of developing, corrupt countries.
I think people just don't want to admit how bad it has gotten because then they have to face their fears and take some action to change their future.
Homelessness, crime, theft, lack of security, mentally ill people in droves on the street, "do not go areas" like the tenderloin in SF and skid row in LA... These are not exaggerations, these are real, growing problems.
At some point, you won't be able to ignore it and all the money in the world that we earned won't help us.
I think people just don't want to admit how bad it has gotten because then they have to face their fears and take some action to change their future.
Homelessness, crime, theft, lack of security, mentally ill people in droves on the street, "do not go areas" like the tenderloin in SF and skid row in LA... These are not exaggerations, these are real, growing problems.
At some point, you won't be able to ignore it and all the money in the world that we earned won't help us.
SF city government provides housing for about half of the city's homeless people. The homeless and mentally ill people in SF come from all over USA. You see them SF, but I don't think SF shares much of the blame for their suffering. American voters are to blame, mostly Americans who voted for Republicans who reduced government spending on social services.
Yes, I still know people who blame the Republicans who ran the state in the 70s for the homeless problem. That was 50 years ago, but it still makes a good narrative.
Your comment violates the site guidelines:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Protecting these specific network of rails falls under the jurisdiction of the special agents of the UP, and not the LAPD which has experienced increased funding through the years. The UP police are headquartered in Omaha Nebraska.
I live in California and people admit all the time how bad it has gotten.
I'm surprised to hear that as I've spoken with extremely wealthy people ($5M+ homes) to people renting a room (That have lived in CA almost their entire life)and a common narrative I hear is "Oh California is the best, there's no other place like it so these problems aren't really that important".
People will lament on Nextdoor, Reddit, Facebook, forums, but in the end, the people I spoke with, won't leave the state or make drastic changes.
People will lament on Nextdoor, Reddit, Facebook, forums, but in the end, the people I spoke with, won't leave the state or make drastic changes.
[deleted]
Reichhardt(2)
koonsolo(4)
SantiagoElf(2)
This is why we can't have nice things.
This is visually shocking, but the sheer amount of money taken from workers by wage theft eclipses this issue completely. Theft is normalized at all levels of American society.
Two wrongs don't make it right..
I’m not trying to justify any of it, just pointing out that theft is a completely accepted part of culture in the US. Don’t get me started on civil forfeiture…
Three wrongs don't make it right either...
Again, never said it was right, just that theft is deeply embedded in many facets of American society.
Theft is deeply embedded in _human_ societies, and we should fight it everywhere on every level.
It only became shocking to people with power and wealth when poor people started doing it.
Fixing decades of neglected infrastructure, education, and social services is going to cost way more than treating people decently would’ve costed. I won’t be surprised if the solutions entirely ignore the mass suffering that is responsible for events like this and only address the losses realized by the people with the power to make change.
Fixing decades of neglected infrastructure, education, and social services is going to cost way more than treating people decently would’ve costed. I won’t be surprised if the solutions entirely ignore the mass suffering that is responsible for events like this and only address the losses realized by the people with the power to make change.
A loss of civic sense and cultural criminality are incredibly hard to weed out of a population, once it has taken root. I worry that the a mix of pessimism and a loss of civic sense is sending non-elite America into a death spiral.
Opponents of return-to-normalcy claim that these are temporary and anomalous circumstances as a result of covid. However, a 2 year period of cultural erosion can lead to this regression getting cemented as a modern cultural identity of non-elite US.
Cost-benefit analyses have been ignored in favor of tunnel-visioning on viral outcomes and short term political gain. At the end of this, we might just find ourselves asking "We made it out of this, but at what cost?".
p.s: I am not advocating for any particular policy, just pointing to the absence of any holistic response. That being said, the complete failure of the American response in terms of 'viral outcomes' despite tunnel visioning on it, doesn't inspire confidence in it.