On Many Political Lessons That Need to Be Learned - 2016

[jross]

Thomas Sowell says things in 2016 that are more true today.  If you want to know how a libertarian-conservative thinks about issues...

1. It is astonishing that some people think that the answer to the problems of Obamacare is to go to a “single-payer” system. But “single payer” is another way to say “government monopoly.” Does anyone notice how government monopolies operate — from the local DMV to Veterans Administration hospitals?
2. Politics has turned the lofty ideal of equality into the ugly reality of resentment of other people’s achievements — and a feeling that the world owes you something while you owe nobody anything.
3. The political Left’s hatred of Donald Trump is ironic because both he and they have the same pattern of automatically demonizing those who disagree with their views rather than confronting opposing arguments with hard evidence or convincing logic.
4. If the media seriously wanted to report the news — instead of spinning it — they could stop calling rioters “protesters” and stop calling terrorists “militants.”
5. Letter from a reader: “The socialists want to take the ‘sting’ out of poverty. They don’t understand that it’s the ‘sting’ that got everyone I know out of poverty and not a minimum wage.”
6. Have we reached the ultimate stage of absurdity where some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, while other people are not held responsible for what they themselves are doing today?
7. Any decent human being can sympathize with the plight of Middle East refugees. But other refugees have been helped in their own part of the world — with money, food, medicine, and other things, in settings more compatible with their own way of life, rather than being brought across an ocean to a country that neither fits them nor which they fit in.
8. Have you ever encountered even one human being — whether in person, in print, or in the broadcast media — who denied climate change? If not, why do you suppose zealots for the catastrophic “global warming” theory want laws passed to punish “climate-change deniers”? Is it because they are losing the battle of evidence on “global warming” and need to shut up others?
9. One of the mysteries of the ages is why the political Left has, for centuries, lavished so much attention on the well-being of criminals and paid so little attention to their victims.
10. The monumental tragedies of the 20th century — a worldwide Great Depression, two devastating World Wars, the Holocaust, famines killing millions in the Soviet Union, and tens of millions in China — should leave us with a sobering sense of the threats to any society. But this generation’s ignorance of history leaves them free to be frivolous — until the next catastrophe strikes and catches them completely by surprise.

[JimmyBT]

https://www.hoover.org/profiles/thomas-sowell
 

 

for those that don’t know of Thomas Sowell here’s a bit about him. 

[jross]

MLK has something to say about accepting responsibility for your actions.

Quote

We are not responsible for the environment we are born in; neither are we responsible for our hereditary circumstances. But there is a third factor for which we are responsible namely, the personal response which we make to these circumstances.

 

We are all familiar with the most common agencies on which we project responsibility for our actions. First we tum to environment. How easy it is for one to affirm that one's whole personality make-up and indeed one's very destiny itself is determined by one's environment. Here is a man about forty now whose life has been given in riotous living. Now as he looks back over these wasted years his comment is: “I would have been if I had been {in} a rich family with prestige and fame or if I had been in a more progressive community. It is my environment that has corrupted me.”

Yet such persons as this fail to realize that many individuals rise from the very lowest of environments to be some of the most noble characters of human history.

• There is a Marian Anderson, born in a poverty stricken area of Phila. Pa. She could have very easily given up in despair and cried out that she was born in the wrong environment. But she was not one to make excuses. This same Marian Anderson rose from a poverty stricken environment to be one of the world's greatest contraltoes, so that a Toscanni can say that a voice like this comes only once in a century and a Seballius of Finland can say, “My roof is too low for such a voice.”4 
• There is a Roland Hayes, born on the red hills of Gordon County Georgia under the most crippling restrictions. At a very early age he found himself working in an iron foundry of Chatanooga Tenn. But from these red hills of Georgia, he rose to the palace of Queen Mother of Spain. From this iron foundry in Chatanooga, Tenn., he rose to the palace of King George the 5th.5 
• There was an Abraham Lincoln, born in poverty and insecurity, later working as a Kentucky rail splitter. Yet this same Abraham Lincoln rose from a Kentucky rail splitter to be one of the greatest characters in the great drama of history.

These are but few of the many examples that could be used to refute the claim that one is completely determined by his environment. Those who hold such a position fail to see that many fine and noble persons stem from bad environments and many very bad and corrupt persons stem from comfortable and desirable environments.

Another external agency on which we readily cast responsibility for our actions is heredity. There are those who would affirm that one is completely determined by heredity. How easy it is to say, “I would have been better if I had had better hereditary circumstances.”

Here again those who project total responsibility for their actions on hereditary circumstances fail to see that numerous individuals rise above such circumstances.

• There is a John Bunyan, deprived of his physical sight, and yet he wrote a Pilgrim's Progress that generations will cherish so long as the cords of memory shall lengthen.6 
• There is a Franklin D. Roosevelt, inflicted with infantile paralysis and yet he rises up to leave such an imprint in the sands of our nations history, that future history books will be incomplete without his name.
• There is a Hellen Keller, burdened with blindness and deafness, and she rises up to live such a sublime and noble life that millions have come to admire her as one of the choicest fruits on yhe tree of history.7 

These are but few of those who have proved that man is not finally caught in the cluches of heredity. He has within himself the power to transcend the disadvantages of bad hereditary conditions...

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, jross said:

Thomas Sowell says things in 2016 that are more true today.  If you want to know how a libertarian-conservative thinks about issues...

1. It is astonishing that some people think that the answer to the problems of Obamacare is to go to a “single-payer” system. But “single payer” is another way to say “government monopoly.” Does anyone notice how government monopolies operate — from the local DMV to Veterans Administration hospitals?
2. Politics has turned the lofty ideal of equality into the ugly reality of resentment of other people’s achievements — and a feeling that the world owes you something while you owe nobody anything.
3. The political Left’s hatred of Donald Trump is ironic because both he and they have the same pattern of automatically demonizing those who disagree with their views rather than confronting opposing arguments with hard evidence or convincing logic.
4. If the media seriously wanted to report the news — instead of spinning it — they could stop calling rioters “protesters” and stop calling terrorists “militants.”
5. Letter from a reader: “The socialists want to take the ‘sting’ out of poverty. They don’t understand that it’s the ‘sting’ that got everyone I know out of poverty and not a minimum wage.”
6. Have we reached the ultimate stage of absurdity where some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, while other people are not held responsible for what they themselves are doing today?
7. Any decent human being can sympathize with the plight of Middle East refugees. But other refugees have been helped in their own part of the world — with money, food, medicine, and other things, in settings more compatible with their own way of life, rather than being brought across an ocean to a country that neither fits them nor which they fit in.
8. Have you ever encountered even one human being — whether in person, in print, or in the broadcast media — who denied climate change? If not, why do you suppose zealots for the catastrophic “global warming” theory want laws passed to punish “climate-change deniers”? Is it because they are losing the battle of evidence on “global warming” and need to shut up others?
9. One of the mysteries of the ages is why the political Left has, for centuries, lavished so much attention on the well-being of criminals and paid so little attention to their victims.
10. The monumental tragedies of the 20th century — a worldwide Great Depression, two devastating World Wars, the Holocaust, famines killing millions in the Soviet Union, and tens of millions in China — should leave us with a sobering sense of the threats to any society. But this generation’s ignorance of history leaves them free to be frivolous — until the next catastrophe strikes and catches them completely by surprise.

1. Agreed. Both places are underfunded and at least one of them could benefit from universally available health care.

2. That is human nature. Thinking life is a zero sum game kept us alive but is not the case anymore. Many conversations on this forum have commenters that cannot unlearn that instinct. 

3. Whataboutism. Its dishonest to equivocate both sides being equally unethical in an attempt to soften the words and actions of their side's representative.   

4. The media is under no obligation to soften language of people you would rather be seen/covered differently. 

5. The plural of anecdote is not data. One person's narrow experience should rarely be taken into consideration when making decisions for a country. Would gladly discuss exceptions to that rule if there are any.

6. Too general. Please elaborate? 

7. This is America, are you familiar with its history? Specifically the history of immigration? How is it any different than this situation? Trying to change the rules in the middle of a game has a word.

8. Yes. Clarifying question, where is that happening? Your question is supposing the answer but that needs evidence before it could or should be believed as truth. Please provide? 

9. I don't accept the premise. Do you have examples? 

10. Not sure what you're getting at. Genocides are happening, right now. Many because one side thinks their invisible friend gives them permission to kill another group because they believe in a different invisible friend. Thinking you'll get away with it is an important part of considering whether to do something horrific. If your invisible friends says you will be forgiven or rewarded for it is an awfully big incentive to do something that would otherwise be considered evil. 

[JimmyBT]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

1. Agreed. Both places are underfunded and at least one of them could benefit from universally available health care.

2. That is human nature. Thinking life is a zero sum game kept us alive but is not the case anymore. Many conversations on this forum have commenters that cannot unlearn that instinct. 

3. Whataboutism. Its dishonest to equivocate both sides being equally unethical in an attempt to soften the words and actions of their side's representative.   

4. The media is under no obligation to soften language of people you would rather be seen/covered differently. 

5. The plural of anecdote is not data. One person's narrow experience should rarely be taken into consideration when making decisions for a country. Would gladly discuss exceptions to that rule if there are any.

6. Too general. Please elaborate? 

7. This is America, are you familiar with its history? Specifically the history of immigration? How is it any different than this situation? Trying to change the rules in the middle of a game has a word.

8. Yes. Clarifying question, where is that happening? Your question is supposing the answer but that needs evidence before it could or should be believed as truth. Please provide? 

9. I don't accept the premise. Do you have examples? 

10. Not sure what you're getting at. Genocides are happening, right now. Many because one side thinks their invisible friend gives them permission to kill another group because they believe in a different invisible friend. Thinking you'll get away with it is an important part of considering whether to do something horrific. If your invisible friends says you will be forgiven or rewarded for it is an awfully big incentive to do something that would otherwise be considered evil. 

More Psycho babble. 

[JimmyBT]

Self Accountability/ Self Respect > Excuses. 

[jross]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

...responses

1. My reading into Thomas' statement was that the government monopoly is poor quality.

2.  The statement is about encouraging individuals to take personal responsibility for their actions and contributions.  It criticizes societal attitudes toward achievement and entitlement.

3.  Will you address it without dismissing it with rhetoric?  

4.  The media needs to cover facts without spin.  Its what citizens want per the surveys.

5.  LOL.  Would you deny that capitalism has lifted more people up than socialism?  Look around and read a book.

6. The generalization is irrelevant.  Thomas emphasizes the importance of individuals taking responsibility for their actions today, which is a foundational principle in ethics.

7. One of the key comments is that there are negative cultural clashes that are occurring in other countries and will increase in the USA.  You keep talking about actions from previous generations and comparing immigration today as if the context was the same as the past.  Feel free to explain why this matters and why you think the situation is the same.

8.  https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/climate-crimes-must-be-brought-justice-0 ...I (Catriona McKinnon) have proposed that international criminal law should be expanded to include a new criminal offence that I call postericide. It is committed by intentional or reckless conduct fit to bring about the extinction of humanity. 

9. I don't accept your ignorance.  We talk about this on this forum.

10. Remember this isn't me... rather a readout of the article from Thomas.   I think he is saying we need to be wiser and avoid monumental tragedies caused by politics.

[ThreePointTakedown]

20 minutes ago, jross said:

1. My reading into Thomas' statement was that the government monopoly is poor quality.

2.  The statement is about encouraging individuals to take personal responsibility for their actions and contributions.  It criticizes societal attitudes toward achievement and entitlement.

3.  Will you address it without dismissing it with rhetoric?  

4.  The media needs to cover facts without spin.  Its what citizens want per the surveys.

5.  LOL.  Would you deny that capitalism has lifted more people up than socialism?  Look around and read a book.

6. The generalization is irrelevant.  Thomas emphasizes the importance of individuals taking responsibility for their actions today, which is a foundational principle in ethics.

7. One of the key comments is that there are negative cultural clashes that are occurring in other countries and will increase in the USA.  You keep talking about actions from previous generations and comparing immigration today as if the context was the same as the past.  Feel free to explain why this matters and why you think the situation is the same.

8.  https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/climate-crimes-must-be-brought-justice-0 ...I (Catriona McKinnon) have proposed that international criminal law should be expanded to include a new criminal offence that I call postericide. It is committed by intentional or reckless conduct fit to bring about the extinction of humanity. 

9. I don't accept your ignorance.  We talk about this on this forum.

10. Remember this isn't me... rather a readout of the article from Thomas.   I think he is saying we need to be wiser and avoid monumental tragedies caused by politics.

1. Other countries do a better job than we of these things. Could we learn something from them? 

2. You'll have to define entitlement. 

3. I did. That's all that needs to be said. Tell me why I should hold that statement as true? I have no hatred for a person for their beliefs. I feel bad for him. The way he was raised made him and his siblings awful people. That he has reached a level of success does nothing for the terrible person he is or his terrible ideas. Plenty on the right dislike 45 but you leave out their concerns. Why is that? If you can bring yourself to answer that question we might get somewhere in this and future conversations. Not holding my breath tho. 

4. I'd be interested in that too. Best of luck putting it into practice. Scorpions sting, its their nature. 

5. It could be argued. What equation are you using? What metrics are you considering? Capitalism under certain conditions is beneficial, sure. Are there areas that should be profit-based? Yes. 

6. Fair and that is important. What about people being oppressed, not having power or influence enough to get justice in the time that the offense happened? Should those instances of suffering be wiped away and forgot having justice served merely as awareness that these events occurred? Or should discussions take place as to whether there are things that could be done to right the wrongs? 

7. Sure I'll do all the work for you since you don't want to. Irish famine: similar to refugee crisis of... every time there's a refugee crisis. People need food and if they can't get it where they live they will try to move to a place that might be able to help them eat. Chinese immigration in the west: jobs were available, people moved from a place with famine and war and disease to a place where they could work and earn a living. All of these are exactly the same as they are today. Italy. Africa. Now central and south america. That you are trying to divide them and categorize them differently is dishonest. 

8. Has it passed? Who is backing it? Who is opposing it? Its illegal to lie, in Germany, about the Holocaust. Things that we agree upon that you lie about for personal/financial gain should have ramifications. If you're ignorant, I get it. Its a big world. Then do more research before shouting from the mountain. 

9. Do you understand what my comment means? It means that I don't feel the need to respond because you haven't done the work to prove that it is something that has happened. Just asserting something doesn't mean I have to respond. You gave no examples. Just posited that your idea was true. Do more work. Since you didn't follow up with examples after I asked for them. I will assume you have none. So your point is void. 

10. If you're not interested in defending something, you feel is true and apt. Then why offer it up in the first place? I appreciate the practice of pointing out bad arguments but sheesh. 

[Offthemat]

One of the things Sowell pointed out about gov’t bureaucracies was that the people who work in them have different goals than you might expect.  He did a stint at the Dept. of Labor.  After taking interest in analyzing the effects of minimum wage laws, he quickly found that the Department had no interest in the effect, they were only interested in the policy and their work within the policy.  And that if they could show that this work was vast and complex it could justify larger budgets and more personnel.  

[JimmyBT]

36 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

1. Other countries do a better job than we of these things. Could we learn something from them? 

2. You'll have to define entitlement. 

3. I did. That's all that needs to be said. Tell me why I should hold that statement as true? I have no hatred for a person for their beliefs. I feel bad for him. The way he was raised made him and his siblings awful people. That he has reached a level of success does nothing for the terrible person he is or his terrible ideas. Plenty on the right dislike 45 but you leave out their concerns. Why is that? If you can bring yourself to answer that question we might get somewhere in this and future conversations. Not holding my breath tho. 

4. I'd be interested in that too. Best of luck putting it into practice. Scorpions sting, its their nature. 

5. It could be argued. What equation are you using? What metrics are you considering? Capitalism under certain conditions is beneficial, sure. Are there areas that should be profit-based? Yes. 

6. Fair and that is important. What about people being oppressed, not having power or influence enough to get justice in the time that the offense happened? Should those instances of suffering be wiped away and forgot having justice served merely as awareness that these events occurred? Or should discussions take place as to whether there are things that could be done to right the wrongs? 

7. Sure I'll do all the work for you since you don't want to. Irish famine: similar to refugee crisis of... every time there's a refugee crisis. People need food and if they can't get it where they live they will try to move to a place that might be able to help them eat. Chinese immigration in the west: jobs were available, people moved from a place with famine and war and disease to a place where they could work and earn a living. All of these are exactly the same as they are today. Italy. Africa. Now central and south america. That you are trying to divide them and categorize them differently is dishonest. 

8. Has it passed? Who is backing it? Who is opposing it? Its illegal to lie, in Germany, about the Holocaust. Things that we agree upon that you lie about for personal/financial gain should have ramifications. If you're ignorant, I get it. Its a big world. Then do more research before shouting from the mountain. 

9. Do you understand what my comment means? It means that I don't feel the need to respond because you haven't done the work to prove that it is something that has happened. Just asserting something doesn't mean I have to respond. You gave no examples. Just posited that your idea was true. Do more work. Since you didn't follow up with examples after I asked for them. I will assume you have none. So your point is void. 

10. If you're not interested in defending something, you feel is true and apt. Then why offer it up in the first place? I appreciate the practice of pointing out bad arguments but sheesh. 

Psycho babble 

[jross]

21 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

1. Other countries do a better job than we of these things. Could we learn something from them? 

2. You'll have to define entitlement. 

3. I did. That's all that needs to be said. Tell me why I should hold that statement as true? I have no hatred for a person for their beliefs. I feel bad for him. The way he was raised made him and his siblings awful people. That he has reached a level of success does nothing for the terrible person he is or his terrible ideas. Plenty on the right dislike 45 but you leave out their concerns. Why is that? If you can bring yourself to answer that question we might get somewhere in this and future conversations. Not holding my breath tho. 

4. I'd be interested in that too. Best of luck putting it into practice. Scorpions sting, its their nature. 

5. It could be argued. What equation are you using? What metrics are you considering? Capitalism under certain conditions is beneficial, sure. Are there areas that should be profit-based? Yes. 

6. Fair and that is important. What about people being oppressed, not having power or influence enough to get justice in the time that the offense happened? Should those instances of suffering be wiped away and forgot having justice served merely as awareness that these events occurred? Or should discussions take place as to whether there are things that could be done to right the wrongs? 

1. Don't care to discuss outside the original point.  There have been other discussions on this topic on this forum.

2. The definition of entitlement is in the original sentence.  "A feeling that the world owes you something while you owe nobody anything."  

3.  Please tell me more about how Thomas and his siblings were raised.  Tell me if he was raised left or right-leaning.  What politics did he support in his college paper writings?  What caused his belief system to change?  What about him makes him awful in your opinion?  

Why bring up Trump?  I am critical of Trump's behaviors while supportive of his policies and execution.  This is stated with specifics across these forum discussions. 

5.  The metric is wealth.  North Korea, South Korea is the obvious live example.  This is one of those self-evident items at this point.  One enables wealth creation.  The other redistributes wealth.  Listen to Argentina talk about their lived experience.

 

 

 

6. I may not understand your concern?  Here is the original statement with 'oppression' listed.  Have we reached the ultimate stage of absurdity where some people are held responsible for the oppression that happened before they were born, while other people are not held responsible for the oppression they themselves are doing today?  I'm assuming you are dissagreeing with the first point... which is fine... my point is that many people do not have any guilt or responsibility for their ancestor behavior.

[jross]

On 2/2/2024 at 2:21 PM, ThreePointTakedown said:

7. Sure I'll do all the work for you since you don't want to. Irish famine: similar to refugee crisis of... every time there's a refugee crisis. People need food and if they can't get it where they live they will try to move to a place that might be able to help them eat. Chinese immigration in the west: jobs were available, people moved from a place with famine and war and disease to a place where they could work and earn a living. All of these are exactly the same as they are today. Italy. Africa. Now central and south america. That you are trying to divide them and categorize them differently is dishonest. 

7.  I 100% agree with you (and Thomas) that it is easy to sympathize with the plight of refugees.  Immigrants want to improve their lives and believe/hope their destination will be better for them and their heirs. 

I agree with Thomas about Middle East refugee 'fit' concerns in America.  The USA doesn't just get workers; it gets people, not necessarily the people it desires.  There is a difference in 'fit' for potential immigrants.  America is an English-speaking, Individualistic, Christ-religious country with personal freedoms.  The Middle East is less English-speaking, collective, Muslim, with different views on freedoms.  There are generational conflicts still occurring today between these people.

Americans hear much about how diversity makes everything better... but less discussed is the research presenting the downside of diversity https://www.puttingourdifferencestowork.com/pdf/j.1467-9477.2007.00176 Putnam Diversity.pdf.  And we can see clashes in videos from across the pond.

One clever statement made by George Borjas on immigration is that people should look at immigration as a redistribution of wealth as a social policy.  Your support relies on whether you want to better support your country's natives versus immigrants, BUT also how much you want to redistribute wealth from natives that compete with immigrants to the natives that use the immigrants.  

For my comments earlier... I was thinking about immigration during colonization being compared to today.  That was different than comparing 1900 to today.  Reframing my thinking to 1900... the public's desire to have immigration, and specifically Middle East immigration, changes over time.  

[jross]

On 2/2/2024 at 2:21 PM, ThreePointTakedown said:

8. Has it passed? Who is backing it? Who is opposing it? Its illegal to lie, in Germany, about the Holocaust. Things that we agree upon that you lie about for personal/financial gain should have ramifications. If you're ignorant, I get it. Its a big world. Then do more research before shouting from the mountain. 

9. Do you understand what my comment means? It means that I don't feel the need to respond because you haven't done the work to prove that it is something that has happened. Just asserting something doesn't mean I have to respond. You gave no examples. Just posited that your idea was true. Do more work. Since you didn't follow up with examples after I asked for them. I will assume you have none. So your point is void. 

10. If you're not interested in defending something, you feel is true and apt. Then why offer it up in the first place? I appreciate the practice of pointing out bad arguments but sheesh. 

8.  Who is 'we' and 'you' in your statement?

9.  In simple terms, the left cares more about helping criminals change and improve their lives than punishing the criminals for their actions.  There are numerous posts across forum topics about weak consequences for criminals (in the name of social justice).  My critique is that you seem to participate in most of these discussions, and I find it hard to believe that you cannot associate 'soft on crime' posts as related to Thomas's statement.

10. The purpose of this post was not to debate.  The purpose of this post was to share how a libertarian-conservative thinks about issues. 

I agree with every statement Thomas made.  Thomas uses rhetoric but no 'bad' argument is detected.

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 2/3/2024 at 4:15 PM, jross said:

8.  Who is 'we' and 'you' in your statement?

9.  In simple terms, the left cares more about helping criminals change and improve their lives than punishing the criminals for their actions.  There are numerous posts across forum topics about weak consequences for criminals (in the name of social justice).  My critique is that you seem to participate in most of these discussions, and I find it hard to believe that you cannot associate 'soft on crime' posts as related to Thomas's statement.

10. The purpose of this post was not to debate.  The purpose of this post was to share how a libertarian-conservative thinks about issues. 

I agree with every statement Thomas made.  Thomas uses rhetoric but no 'bad' argument is detected.

8. 'We' is society. 'You' is an individual. 

9. Not entirely sure what you mean. What do you mean 'soft on crime'? 

What is the goal of incardinating a criminal for a crime? Is it to punish, rehabilitate, educate, or something else? Are there other things that we can do to ensure people don't see crime as an alternative to make a living?

Because there is lots of data and examples of other practices getting different/better outcomes as far as crime statistics in other countries. Might it be a good idea to try and incorporate some of those options? 

10. That feels dishonest. You've been responding to the comments. So the horse is out of the barn at this point. 

That you can't 'see' a 'bad' argument doesn't mean it isn't there. Just that you are unable to see it for one reason or another. Do you see the difference? 

[WrestlingRasta]

26 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

What is the goal of incardinating a criminal for a crime? Is it to punish, rehabilitate, educate, or something else? Are there other things that we can do to ensure people don't see crime as an alternative to make a living?

Yes, all of the above, and add in deterrent.

Alot of things that could be done more on a preventive/proactive nature.  That's a long conversation...

 

[mspart]

3 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Yes, all of the above, and add in deterrent.

Alot of things that could be done more on a preventive/proactive nature.  That's a long conversation...

 

Agree.   The object is to remove the criminal from society so no further crime from that individual is perpetrated against innocent civilians.   If the criminal can be reformed that is good.    A few are, most are not.   We could just put to death every criminal and then there would be no mass incarceration.  

But to let criminals go and put them back into society without paying price for their anti-social behavior guts the criminal justice system.   Criminal justice system should be renamed to Victim justice system.   When criminals are let go, the victim count increases unnecessarily.   We  are on the verge of vigilantism.   There is a case of this in Houston recently where a person lured a sex offender to have sex with a minor.   When the sex offender showed up, the sex offender's life was take from him/her.   I personally do not see a need to cry over this, except that government has abdicated their responsibility to keep the citizens safe in favor of social justice which says some perps don't deserve the affects of the law.   It is based on skin color or other range of minority-ism rather than on law that is just.   You cannot say that a person can shoplift because  they have nothing and then turn around and say a person that has something cannot shoplift.   That is not just.   Theft is theft.  

https://fee.org/articles/why-walgreens-is-closing-5-san-francisco-stores/

Economics students learn in their 101 classes that basic markets can’t function without a few prerequisites — namely, the protection of private property rights. It’s an introductory concept because it’s almost self-evident: How can people do business if they’re not secure in their property and profits? Yet the furthest-left faction of today’s Democratic Party, which governs in the most liberal bastions such as San Francisco, has abandoned even this most basic lesson. And, just as econ 101 predicted, stores are abandoning the California city in droves.

Just this week, the pharmacy chain Walgreens announced that it will close five of its stores in San Francisco, citing theft and retail crime as the main motivator behind its decision.

The theft doesn't just hurt the store who is the immediate victim.   But allowing the theft, the city has decided that those who use that store to fill prescription are not worthy of a convenient and safe place to do so.   Does that sound like justice to you?  It is, as the article says, the predictable outcome of not enforcing the law.

mspart

 

[jross]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

That you can't 'see' a 'bad' argument doesn't mean it isn't there. Just that you are unable to see it for one reason or another. Do you see the difference? 

Perhaps you could explain what is bad, and then I will see it.

[Offthemat]

 

[jross]

@Offthemat That FY from Eli Crane made my day and maybe my week brighter.  

[Offthemat]

27 minutes ago, jross said:

@Offthemat That FY from Eli Crane made my day and maybe my week brighter.  

There is hope. 

[mspart]

That actually was worth watching.  Thank you for posting offthemat. 

mspart