The UK is poor and getting poorer every year. People simply don’t start companies there. Making the labor market even worse isn’t going to fix the structural issues that are reducing living standards year after year
>the number of employing businesses decreasing by 9,000 (0.7%), but the number of non-employing businesses rising by 201,000 (4.9%)
Isn't "non-employing business" an euphemism of sorts for "Uber driver"? No idea though if the UK is already forcing Uber to hire drivers and couriers as employees or not yet.
I am self employed electrician in Germany. I will never ever hire someone due to sick regulations here. I can work with clothing and tools I want. I can use my old stable ladder. For my employee I must get very expensive hardware and be liable for his work and his health. So thanks, it will never happen. I work all the time with other self employed people and they do share same opinion.
I don't want to misinterpret you, and your point about very expensive hardware surely has merit... But what makes it a "sick regulation" for you to "be liable for his work and his health"? That seems like the absolute bare minimum?
To be honest I would prefer addicts could get heroin prescribed. The primary danger of street drugs is the inconsistent purity and chemicals it’s cut with. If it was pharmaceutical grade and everyone prescribed was on a list, we would have fewer overdoses and a better understanding of who to put in treatment
Most heroin overdoses happen either from a sudden increase in supply purity, or from an abstinent addict relapsing and taking their regular dose without realizing they have lost their tolerance.
Any kind of rational change in policy is not happening as long as entire lucrative industries of policing, health care and religion-as-a-social-service are dependent on the dependent.
It's such things that reveal the cruelty in our sociaties. The evidence is very clear; it reduces deaths and improves health, while also reducing crime. But its still not the default the world over because its apparently a hard sell to give addicts anything for free. The other comments here show the sentiments nicely.
There is no need to give it for free. It costs very little to produce, most of the cost is just risk and irregular logistics. Just sell it over the counter at walmart for $5 just like they do rat poison, bottles of vodka, and ammunition.
You might say they won't be able to sell enough foodstamps or welfare even then to come up with the money legally, but it'd still be way less crime.
People don't get addicted to rat poison or ammunition (usually). But you have got a point on vodka. There is little reason to treat alcohol (and worse, nicotine) as any different than most addictive substances. Drug policy is totally irrational
alcohol is a far cry away from opiates. they should just allow everything. its actually effective in drastically reducing abuse. since use is normalized it become easier to have social control form peers etc. and that works really well actually. Additionally it would allow for stable products which means more safe products.
The US did this dance with the devil in the pale moonlight before anyone, way back in the 19th century. Tens of thousands (millions) of wounded soldiers came back from the civil war in chronic pain and addicted to morphine. They put them on "lists" and prescribed them dope and it spiraled out of control. It got so bad that they engineered Heroin to be a safer alternative. And people forget, but the temperance movement wasn't just focused on alcohol. They were the primary forces behind the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. And these people weren't bible thumping crusaders, many were like early feminists that lost children\husbands to drugs and alcohol. I think Europe eventually comes around to this same conclusion when enough damage has been done. Metering out hard drugs has always been a road to ruin.
This seems only partially correct. If by "they" you mean Germans then yes, Heroin was engineered by them, or at least first made commercially available by Bayers. The US government had nothing to do with it. It was marketed as a less addictive alternative to morphine although I highly doubt anyone who made it actually believed it was safer. I have no source for this but I think it is a safe assumption to make.
The temperance movement was mainly related to alcohol. There were groups who wanted abstinence from everything but that was not its primary focus. They may have played a part in said act but I don't know. They were definitely not the driving force behind it though. Racism played a bigger role than the temperance movement. The government was also aware there was a very real problem with drug addiction.
Notice the word „decriminalize“, not „legalize“.
It’s about not throwing people already struggling with addiction in jail but rather offering safe alternatives (counseling, safer use, etc.).
The government‘s not passing out drugs in the street, like US media likes to suggest.
Nowadays they're just given methadone or Buprenorphine (other opioids). Having known family members that worked in the clinic, there is no plan to get most of them off of it. It is like other opiate addicts, ~most of them take it until they are dead unless they are just dead set on getting off and willing to live with the fact they might never quite feel 'right' again, although at least it is safer.
Is that such a bad thing? Plenty of people will take medications for the rest of their life -- statins, antipsychotics, antidepressants, ADHD meds, antiretrovirals. The stigma of chronic medicine use needs to go away.
I don't know it's a bad thing, just pointing out, the US does just prescribe opiate addicts more opiates basically for life without a plan to stop it. Responding to "They put them on lists and prescribed them dope and it spiraled out of control ... metering out hard drugs has always been a road to ruin" with the facts that's what we're already doing writ large. The thing many people argue shouldn't become the case is already the case and many are oblivious to it (thinking that it was just a thing in the past we stopped).
It isn't the same drug as fentanyl, but it never really stopped being the plan that we will take people from 'the list' and just keep metering opiates out indefinitely. GGP posted this in a way that seemed to allude this was not currently the case.
Big city government is almost entirely Democrat run. The primaries are everything. The voters in primaries are city union workers. The way to win in city primaries is to promise more money for less effort to them. That is the central issue of big city American politics - it’s just poorly run, very expensive, and operated to extract money from taxpayers to hand over to the unions
Hmmm probably the only thing I’ve consistently noticed around the US is they can pave highways and roads very quickly. That’s the American skill: tons of sprawl and highways. You may have been confusing road repaving with gas or water pipe replacement
America is a global superpower. Trump is not bound by laws, anymore than Bush 1 and 2 were restricted in Iraq, LBJ in Vietnam, FDR in everything, and on and on. It really doesn’t matter. Some loophole will be found. It’s meaningless
Elect a new president who decides they care again about restrictions on American trade. Your only hope
America wasn't always a global superpower either and maybe it won't remain one. But it's still useful to operate within the context of the reality we live in, which is what monero was describing.
Because the Senate had the votes to convict and remove him from office. Presidents don’t resign absent the rule of law, largely because that constitutes a death sentence.
Like common, American top level politicians are protected against the law like no one else. They can commit any crimes, literally, and norms are to look away and celebrate them anyway.
The vast majority of crimes are committed by a small percentage of people. The real issue is prosecutors who refuse to incarcerate repeat offenders. But having video evidence is a powerful tool for a motivated prosecutor to actually take criminals off the streets
We spend $80 billion a year on incarceration in the US, and have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Your plan increases both. Do you honestly think that if we spend $160 billion or $240 billion a year and double or triple our incarcerated population that we'd solve crime?
Look at places and countries with low crime. They don't have the most Flock cameras, the most prisoners, or the most powerful surveillance evidence because while those may solve a crime, they don't solve crime as a whole.
Iceland is one of the most peaceful countries in the world (murder rate 0.54), 36 incarcerations per 100k, police don't carry guns, and it's not known for its widespread mass surveillance system.
Portugal is one of the most peaceful in the world (murder rate 0.7), 118 incarcerations per 100k, and doesn't have license plate readers or mass surveillance.
USA murder rate is 6.3, 541 incarcerations per 100k, extremely high recidivism, and an amazing array of surveillance systems.
Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001. Guess they should have bought Flock cameras instead?
Ghana has a murder rate of 1.84 and incarceration rate of 133 per 100k. It didn't get this stable by buying Flock cameras. They have nowhere near the surveillance of the U.S. And they have far fewer murders, far less violent crime, and far fewer incarcerations. If only the prosecutors had more evidence then it could be more like the U.S.!?
Woodmore, Maryland is 82% black. Chance of being a victim of a violent crime is 1 in 904. That's three times safer than the national average. It's an extremely safe community with an overwhelming majority of residents being black.
I would think hard on Ghana. It has no shortage of black people living in poverty. Yet it's extremely safe compared to the US as a whole. You're far less likely to be the victim of a violent crime walking down a street in Ghana surrounded by impoverished black people than you are in many streets in the U.S. Not all of Africa is like that. Many countries are more dangerous than the U.S. But Ghana shows pretty clearly that it's not a racial or even strictly a poverty issue. And that increasing our incarceration rate is quite possibly the opposite of what needs to be done. We need to consider other solutions.
It feels good and easy to say lock the bad people up. But the numbers don't show that as a solution if the real issue you're trying to solve is decrease violent crime.
Also Sierra Leone in Africa with a homicide rate a third that of the USofA.
Both Ghana and Sierra Leone are gated communities, just as the USofA, the UK, and Australia are.
I'd suggest that Woodmore fails to meet you particular bias, hence you rule it out.
Woodmore likely meets your four intended criteria depending upon the level of internal surveillance .. I suspect it's not surveillance that prevents Woodmore occupants from killing each other.
Gated communities don't count because residents have to be wealthy enough to buy their way in, so they're populated by a non-violent-criminally-biased sample of the general population. Some countries might count as gated communities if they're heavily populated by 1st generation immigrants who had to be wealthy to get in, otherwise no, they're just full of whatever random people were born there or moved there without any selection pressure against crime.
From the outside, it looks like the US's society and culture fosters an unusually large criminal class compared to other western countries? If people had access to education, healthcare, jobs that aren't shipped overseas, minimum wage that wasn't laughable, etc, there wouldn't be so much problems? Arguing over severity of punishment while ignoring systemic issues is silly.
Non-developed countries do not have functional law enforcement and they are highly corrupt, so any statistics outside of developed countries should be ignored.
For developed countries, none but America have such high levels of immigration nor the racial diversity America has. It is much easier to convince society to promote high-trust empathetic solutions when society is racially homogenous and shares cultural background. It’s impossible to compare America to any European country, although soon it may be possible if immigration continues
I don't think you can make a facile pronouncement that European countries and ethnically and culturally homogenous any longer. We can't have a High-trust society in the USA when politicians scapegoat immigrants, in spite of their being more law-abiding on the whole. We can't avoid having a demoralized populace when corporate funded politicians of both parties drag their feet instead of giving citizens of the most productive and wealthy country in the history of the world parity with less wealthy countries, in terms of healthcare, education, housing, retirement and lack of life precariousness, like going into bankruptcy over medical debt...
How are you measuring that? There are plenty of developed countries with a higher immigrant share like Switzerland and Australia. If you're taking about visible minorities then Canada has a higher proportion of the population.
Who do you think those people are that are incarcerated in the USA?
I come across this rather frequently among people from sheltered backgrounds like those who graduated from mom and dad taking care of them, all the way through to Mega Corp/university taking care of them, and absolutely cannot fathom why everyone doesn’t just eat cake.
I have a working theory that this effect, whatever one wants to call it, of people being too abstracted from reality, is ultimately the source of collapse of all kinds of organizations of humans… including civilizations.
It is, for example also why America can have so many vile warmongering people, because not only do they not have to lead troops into battle, have their children drafted into the front lines, or pay for the invariable disaster and murder they perpetrated and orchestrated; but in the most grotesque way, they profit from it and immensely; usually also combining it with other types of fraud like “money printing”, i.e., counterfeiting, which they use to plunder the wealth they accumulated through murder, mayhem, and fraud.
This isn't a new complaint. People have been identifying this group as the source of a lot of bad stuff at least as far back as Marx. The petty or petite bourgeoisie, the professional managerial class, Karens, the name changes with the times. But the constant derision for these groups is rooted in people observing that these groups are disposed to the sort of "driving society off a cliff" behavior you are listing examples of.
Now you're getting it. You have exactly identified the problem.
Instead of identifying and addressing the real problems--mass unemployment, homelessness, hopelessness--your dystopic "solution" is simply more and bigger jails, more and better armed cops with surveillance cameras attached, more laws, more weapons, more bondage and discipline, more "you will do what I say or else."
Doesn't work. Never works.
Read the essay "Fate of Empires" by Sir John Glubb to see how things this time are not in fact any different than what came before.
If there is no real penalty for being a career criminal, people will continue to be career criminals.
If someone knows they can rob people and get away with it, why would they do honest work for a living?
What is your solution to prevent crime without incarceration as a possible outcome for people breaking the law… especially those who do it repeatedly? It’s easy to talk down to solutions being used today, but without offering up a realistic alternative, this provides no value.
I asked for a realistic alternative solution and you offered none, just more criticisms for the status quo.
There are already incentives for honest work… a paycheck, benefits, etc. Not to mention being a net positive to society. There is also the option to start a business, which has unlimited upside.
Some people put a lot of effort into breaking the law and making life worse for other people. If that effort was directed in a positive direction, they could be successful, without being a criminal.
This also goes for the white collar criminals that get a pass while running large companies or governments. If those efforts were directed in a better direction, life would also get better for everyone.
I wish there was as much sympathy for the victims as the criminals.
The average drug dealer makes less than minimum wage. People commit crimes because they enjoy doing it, not because they need to. We know this because we have survey data on convicted criminals.
> The average drug dealer makes less than minimum wage.
The average drug dealer struggles to keep a minimum wage job.
> We know this because we have survey data on convicted criminals.
We know otherwise because the US isn't the only country in the world, and places that focus on rehabilitation and job training have dramatically lower recidivism rates.
This may be hard to accept - but there are some people who can’t help themselves. They are career criminals and even when presented with honest work they still choose to commit crimes. There exist sociopaths who don’t feel empathy or remorse, and are driven by their own desires and needs regardless of the cost to other people and society. They cannot be rehabilitated. They need to be locked in a cage forever. Society has known about these people since civilization began
Yeah there are people who can't help themselves, but they are a fraction of a fraction of the population. When presented with an honest and decent alternative the vast majority will choose it.
You continue to dodge my question about the alternative to incarceration, when we continue to have significant numbers of repeat offenders. You know what I’m asking, yet continue to try and distract from it by nitpicking semantics. I don’t think you have an answer.
Hoss, if you cared you'd know about all the many, many efforts at things like "Restorative Justice". Hell, you'd know what the statistics are around recidivism in the US versus other countries and be able to tell us why other places in the world have such different outcomes.
There are plenty of reasons. Mass incarcertaion is a strategy, and it's unique to the US.
If you're really curious, a good entry point is the film "13th".
As a third person observing this conversation, you seem neither curious nor interested in learning why someone might think of US mass incarceration in such strong terms.
The answers are out there, if you actually cared to find them.
Looking for opinions on the open internet doesn’t tell me what the person I asked actually thinks about the topic. The strong term they used is precisely the reason I asked.
Most offenders in the U.S. prison system that U.S. citizens tax dollars are paying for are not violent offenders, at least not until they've been in and out of the prison system at least once, then their chances of committing additional crimes sky rocket.
So to answer your sneakily worded question (throwing in the word violent like some kind of gotcha for the first time): I personally don't want more people in prison because I think it is wasteful both in terms of capital and in terms of human experience, there are proven better alternatives like rehabilitation that work for most people and have significantly better outcomes, and finally because the united states prison system is effectively captured by corporate interests which is antithetical to a society that should be against cruel punishments.
Why is your focus so narrow on ensuring people get punished for crimes rather than ensuring there is no crime? We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Increasing that isn't going to turn us into Iceland.
Depends a lot on the city/state.
Check super blue cities like Seattle or San Francisco, and the people there complain that the justice system doesn't work as repeat offenders are let go, for one reason or another.
The big incarceration states are most likely deep red states.
The incarceration rate of every single US state is higher than that of every country in the European continent except Belarus, Russia and Turkey. Each state's incarceration rate is also higher than that of every country in the OECD (a club of mostly rich countries) except Chile, Costa Rica and Turkey.
Of the exceptions I have listed, Turkey has the highest incarceration rate of 366 per 100k. Even so, it is still lower than that of 41 states, falling between Hawaii (367) and Connecticut (326).
I live in Canada, to me the US is a whole. I am pretty sure one can find close to crimeless areas there along with something totally opposite. does not matter from the outside.
The real problem with prosecutors is that they don't want to prosecute. When I was on the grand jury in my city a couple of years ago, there was a slow morning and the assistant DA said that there were about 4000 cases per year and that they brought 30 of those to trial. He didn't think anything of it, for him it was a story about how they loved trials because "they were so much fun". But if they were so much fun, why are less than 1% of cases going to trial?
Plea deals.
Plea deals subvert justice for both those innocent who are bullied into pleading out, and for those who are wickedly guilty and get a big discount on the penalty exacted. Plea deals give the system extra capacity for prosecution, encouraging the justice system to fill the excess capacity, while simultaneously giving an underfunded system that doesn't have enough capacity the appearance of being able to handle the load. Bad all around.
there exists evidence proving that a fraction of individuals commit the majority of violent crime. thus, incarcerating those particular individuals would inherently reduce the majority of violent crime. is something missing from this equation?
I read that as questioning whether better evidence would actually help. Which I assume is a reference to some prosecutors ignoring certain crimes as a matter of policy, for example there was news a bit ago about CA choosing to ignore shoplifting under some amount.
If you’d like to have an informed opinion, at least engage with the academic material. Otherwise you come off sounding naïve, insisting that complex problems have simple solutions.
Edit: maybe my ears are a bit sensitive, but I can’t help but hear a faint whistle in the wind, maybe only at a frequency a dog could hear. But no, surely not here in gentlemanly company.
That’s not what I’m disputing, of course. I’m disputing that the grandparent’s assertion that if we (by your stats) simply lock up 1% of the population that violent crime would drop by 60%.
I mean, trivially, using our brains for a nanosecond, what if that 1% of the population is almost always 16-18 year olds when they commit those violent crimes. The 16-18 demographic is roughly 4% of the US population (Google). That would mean locking up 1 in 4 high school students for 6-20 of their most formative years, and thrusting them back into society with a “Mission Accomplished” banner hanging behind you.
Play with the numbers a bit (maybe it’s 1 in 20), but the point stands. Using imprisonment to try to quarantine a demographic that is perceived as irreparably violent is a barbaric, sophomoric idea that has very little evidence of success in the modern era.
There are two ideas here - locking up actual criminals and locking up people who happen to fit the pattern of a criminal even without committing any crime. You're arguing against the latter, but I don't think anybody was proposing that.
Don't jail criminals because maybe they're young, that's your argument? Sounds like a something that's already part of the sentencing policy, leniency of first time offenders.
I was tipsy when I typed that out, tbh. But yeah, there’s a strong case to be made that jailing youth while simultaneously divesting in their communities causes a pretty significant hollowing out and sense of hopelessness.
The reason I brought up youth is because, unsurprisingly, most violent crime is performed by people who don’t have a fully-formed prefrontal cortex. Feelings of invincibility and a sense of not having much to lose.
oh so you did have a point , why didn't you just say so ! do you have any hard evidence to back you assertion that the majority of recidivism occurs in minors ? coz that would definitely make for a better discussion than calling each other names
you are accusing me of virtue signalling without discussing the evidence. this in itself is a virtue signal. I'm not trying to insult you by saying this ... you are behaving hypocritically. lots of people don't treat that gently, I genuinely suggest you be careful towards whom you act that way. if you have an actual point I'm happy to chat about it, however my tolerance of snippy snappy rhetoric is running low
Nah man I’m going to continue to proudly call out people who skirt the line of racism by advocating for the same policies that racists have championed since the fall of the Confederacy. Say it with your chest next time, there’s a reason that it’s not tolerated in polite company. I guess maybe some of YCombinator would enjoy it though, judging by their investments and the rhetoric of those they are associated with.
it sounds to me like you would prefer moral grandstanding about north american politics instead of sharing discussion. not interested, thanks for the opportunity to practice my patience
I agree. There needs to be a non racist president that just sweeps in and does a El Salvador type cleanup of the streets. I bet the 80%+ of normal black people in crime ridden cities like Baltimore, St. Louis, Memphis, Detroit, New Orleans would be in full support. Let’s be honest, young black gangsters are the main criminal element in these places. Trump can’t do this because he is a piece of shit with no integrity.
El Salvador doesn't have the type of Constitutional rights that America has. That type of sweep would not be legal.
And that doesn't even get into jurisdictional issues. The federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over local crimes that do not cross interstate boundaries.
Reddit is so insufferably political now it's insane. Like why do 3d printing subreddits need to stand with (insert leftist outrage of Gaza / Israel / Ice / Canada / on and on)
I think it's very telling how you went to Reddit first when complaining about politics on social media, one of the only big ones that still hasn't been completely invaded by MAGA sycophants. Just admit you take no issues with politics on social media, you just want them to align with your views.
> If you write the words “cis” or “cisgender” on X, you might be served this full-screen message: “This post contains language that may be considered a slur by X and could be used in a harmful manner in violation of our rules,” the warning says. You can continue to publish the post or delete it.
Like when they banned posting the word Substack or linking to websites in your profile under Musk for a while. And @elonjet is still banned, despite an explicit promise not to.
No online platform has free speech. No online platform should have free speech. Besides, free speech is a constitutional / legal thing, a platform does not need to host it.
Claiming Twitter has free speech (as in absolutist, as in you can say what you want and won't get banned) means you've drunk the kool-aid / accepted the propaganda.
All of those topics can be found other places if you look, then it updates your algorithm. I mean vaccine skepticism? Youtube and instagram have a million videos
Why do you think? Enragement = engagement. You could generously assume that it's users optimizing for posts that get them likes/karma/whatever, or ungenerously assume that the platform itself is gaming engagement via AI or bots, but the effect is the same and it's pervasive. The only out is finding tiny communities that are still communities, and praying they don't grow.
Everyone saw the Facebook model and adopted it. It's why Reddit has the valuation it does (and why it's still insane to me people intentionally use it as a recommendation or information tool).
I actually think it's because reddit is supported by a vast group of unpaid labor (moderators) and conspiratorially I believe they (actually) get paid by NGOs and governments to push narratives and suppress others. Although denied (poorly) it is very likely ghislaine maxwell was one of the most powerful moderators of reddit, modding hundreds of subreddits including r/worldnews, up until the day she was arrested
reply