Conversation between two of my friends about BLM and this whole thing [Transcript]

[lmfao]

Just thought this was an interesting share. My friend is ghetto af. Has been homeless and has been to jail before. But he's very intelligent and well-read with a large reservoir life experience. He's "Person A" here. 

It's a large paste. So just read until the next set of "____________________" if you want. In this initial part he talks about policing and jail. 
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Person A:

The main problem is lack of fathers.
I would introduce much more liberal systems for work release, so they can leave jail early. The people pulling the levers of who can leave jail should not just be judges, but also their employers and community.

Additionally, I would provide huge tax breaks to companies that hire those people, to incentivize. I would also decrease the tax rate in areas with high crime to offset the emigration of people, to encourage business and job opportunities.

Obviously decriminalizing drugs. And I think people should be reimbursed for time in jail for selling drugs. Which would positively target the black community. I don't think they should be handed money necessarily, but rather, the time you spent in jail gives you a tax deduction relative to years spent in jail.
-----
Obviously, the whole racist BLM narrative is 99% bullshit.
Obviously, the media is nothing more than a propaganda engine at this point.

But here's where the real problems are:

If a black person gets arrested...
He doesn't have the education to really know his rights.
The public defender lawyer piece of shit, has no respect for "Javon".

The nig*** knows that once he enters the criminal justice system, he's donzo.
So he has to fight. 
What choice does he have?
--

The fact that he knows this, means that confrontations with police are going to escalate more than your average white person.
Which means more aggression, thus more chance of shit going awry.

Fundamentally, the problem that no one talks about is thus:
Police officers don't have autonomy anymore.
----
Back in the day, if a police officer pulled you over, they could make a judgment call such as:
"alright, I can tell this person fucked up, I'll give them some advice, they can move on"

Nowadays it's different. 
They are obligated by law, to report their interactions.
Thus, less autonomy.
Thus, forcing minor mistakes to escalate into talking with a judge.

The reality is, most criminals, when they encounter a cop or 2, will adjust, if the cop gives them leniency.
--
We need to deescalate cop-encounters, and give cops more room to be generous to the people they interact with.

Body cams, ironically, exacerbate this problem. So cops are not even allowed to "slip under the radar"  and be generous to people.
Or they'll be cited for not reporting a criminal interaction.
--
Professional State prosecutors are judged on their prosecution rate.
Public Defenders are not. Public Defenders are just doing that as a short stint in their career in law.
----
So prosecutors are highly incentivized to send people to jail.
And public defenders are only incentivized to do the basic paper work and time, then move on to the next level in their career.
---

So professional public defenders and prosecutors should be abolished.
And replaced with random selection of lawyers, much like jurors are randomly selected.
So people don't make careers out of sending people to jail.
--
Also, crazy idea that no one might take seriously

But Jails should be private
BUUUUUUUUUUTTT
Those found guilty should be able to choose their jail.
This would initiate market forces.
When a guilty person chooses their jail, the government pays that jail a stipend to pay for that person.
So jails are now competing for prisoners, and their utility function is DECREASED recidivism rates, and more human environments.
--
There should be no bottleneck in the system where we treat human beings like they're not human beings.
Once you initiate that, a cascade of degeneracy takes place.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alright, now a dialogue starts with "Person B". Talk about criminalisation of drugs. Why it matters from a legislative point of view it matters whether a criminal choice is "systematic" vs "individual".
Conversation gets a bit more messy now, a bit more sifting now since there's a debate and clash of views going on. 
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Person B:

Definitely don't agree people should be reimbursed for selling or that production and distribution of drugs should be decriminalized but prohibiting possession of small amounts and use is far from productive.

Person A: 
Should we criminalize people for telling their friends how awesome a particular drug is?

If we're going to be "moral", it's not sellers and buyers that are culpable. All they're doing is filling in vacancies in the market that already exist. The true assholes are the "advertisers"; those that turn normies into druggies. 

But how do you police that? You don't; not reasonable.

Whatever moral issues one has with drugs, the criminalization/[war on drugs] has done nothing but make things worse.

Person B:

"It's not sellers and buyers that are culpable''
This is nonsense. Buyers are the ones creating the vacancies. Selling drugs is pretty fucking degenerate. Y'know, the ole selling someone a product hoping they ruin their lives over it so they sell their house and abandon their children so they can buy a few grams.

And while I'm all for people making their own choices, and using drugs should be legal, I find it hard to consider legalizing the selling of outright poison to the general public. Of course, goes without saying not every drug is remotely like this.
It's a case to case basis to some extent.

Person A: 

A serial killer isn't thinking: "well, if I don't kill this person, someone else will"
A drug seller is precisely thinking: "well, if I don't sell drugs to this nig  someone else will"
-
They are fundamentally different things.
You have to take into account the incentive structures of the environment.
-
I can, with great powers of autism, agree with: "it is, ultimately, buyers that create these vacancies".
That is technically true in some collective sense, but realistically, it's not true from the vantage point of any individual.
It's always important, from a policy or political perspective, not to get trapped in category errors of collective VS individual culpabilities.
---
I don't know about legalizing drugs, that's a debate beyond my jurisdiction.
But drugs should be decriminalized in most instances.
By the fact that users are literally psychologically warped by drug impacts.
And sellers are psychologically warped by economic forces.

Person B:

"If I don't do it, someone else will" does not justify doing things.

Person A:

From a vantage of policy and legislation, yes it does matter.
The prohibition of alcohol in the united states is a good example of this.
And we got rid of those laws, precisely because we understood that when you're dealing with incentive structures, you cannot rely on typical justifications of criminal justice.
---
We want to punish individual choices as much as possible.

Person B:

Alcohol is an edge case though since the usage of it was a staple of western society.

Person A:

We want to eliminate systemic choices as much as possible.

Whether or not it's an edge case isn't the point.

The point is, once there's economic forces at play, you cannot treat people as individual actors.

You must treat it as a system.

Person B: 

I do agree that drug selling/drug use is, to an extent, the product of flaws in the system, by the way.

Person A:

You're a European nig*** so I'm sure you're aware of the massive success in Portugal's decriminalization of drugs right?

Person B:

They decriminalize use. Not production or distribution.

Person A:

That's true, but they did lessen the punishments.

Person B:

And while addressing the flaws responsible for the massive use/sale of drugs is obviously necessary, these flaws do not justify making the choice to sell poison to people who are addicted to poison.

Person A:

Do you realize
You are basically, logically saying:
"We will commit to jailing precisely X% of the population"

X = the % of drug sellers needed to fulfill market demands.
---
If you don't shift market demands
You don't do a fucking thing
--
By reducing the punishment for drug users, you give them more options to heal.
Thus, reducing demand.
Thus reducing sellers.
Sellers will spawn.
They always spawn.
It's human nature
You can't do shit about it.

Person B:

I never disagreed with decriminalizing drug possession or use.
I explicitly agreed with that.

Person A:

Real talk niggah:
If you could make 20k in the next 2 weeks selling drugs.
(presuming all the hard work is done, you just need to press the button to make that choice)
Can you honestly say you wouldn't do it?
Knowing, the logical creature that you are.
That they're going to get those drugs regardless of your decision?

Person B: 

However, in your eyes, you are saying that it's the system making these choices for said person and that they can practically not be held accountable because the system is flawed. Just because a system is flawed doesn't mean people should strictly be rewarded for actively exploiting it - especially not at other people's expense.

Person A:

I'd do it.
I'm a moral autist that would deliver a wallet full of 40k to their owner without question.
And even I'd do it.

Person B: 

I probably would. And I'd accept being held somewhat accountable for the effects of my choice.
There's a reason fraud is illegal.

Person A:

I understand your point, but things have to be differentiated between "aberrant choice" and "systemic choice".
-
The former, you deal with forces directed to the person.
The latter, you deal with forces directed to everything but the person.
You want to strip the drug seller of their powers.
You know, as a policy maker, that they are a mathematical inevitability.

Person B:

And while this policy being addressed should be a priority that doesn't mean the ones doing these things should get away with it.

Person A:

You can literally snipe drug sellers in the head with A.I drones.
All you end up doing is increasing the cost of drugs, and increasing their stealth and defensive maneuvers.

Person B:
I don't know. It's hard to say exactly what would happen if you were to entirely decriminalize drug selling.

Person A:
Here's what you want, as a policy maker.
You want a potential drug seller to think the following:
"What's the point in selling drugs. I'm not going to make any money, and it's more work than just finding a job"
That IS YOUR FUCKING GOAL
Putting them in prison does nothing, except for initiate Darwinian forces that attract drug sellers that are better at avoiding the law.
Drug sellers/$ per capita literally the same.
--
If anything, by criminalizing drugs as such, you are forcing people to break the law when they otherwise wouldn't.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alright, that's it. I was late to the convo and opened it at this point. I then asked Person A one question which prompted him to send a response
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Me:

Breaking the law in other ways besides selling drugs as well?

Person A:

No.
People aren't robbing stores at some constant rate.
Unlike selling drugs.
Selling of drugs is a constant rate.
It's always the same.

The only things that change is the cost of drugs.
You know the irony?
The higher the cost of drugs, the MORE CRIME, because people commit crimes to pay for the drugs.
Literally does nothing.
--
Here's the psychological point though
Drugs are inherently irrational
This means that drugs do not map onto economic forces properly.
Addicts will merely pay more for the same drug.
The same isn't true for say, a toaster, or a videogame.
---
The majority of people who sell drugs don't commit other crimes.
My pothead younger brother sells drugs, that fucker wouldn't harm a fly.
 

Edited June 15, 2020 by lmfao

[Preety_India]

 

Haha. Pretty much like the conversation between me and my boyfriend regarding this issue. 

 

 

[lmfao]

In regards to the point made about police officers having to report every interaction. How he thinks body cams makes cop-civilian encounters worse. 

It reminds me of the general point that the world is becoming ripe with documentation and paperwork. Very legalistic and rigid codes of conduct for things. Whilst you can obviously understand their function as a safety net and ultimate arbiter for settling disputes, one can feel saddened by the pathologies of it. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by lmfao

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, lmfao said:

Those found guilty should be able to choose their jail.
This would initiate market forces.

Lol

Nice libertarian fantasy.

Judge: "So, young man. Which prison do you want to go to?"

Criminal: "Hold on Your Honor. Let me check the Yelp reviews."

[Epikur]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Lol

Nice libertarian fantasy.

Yes nice but maybe it is not  the worst idea. When police wants you in handcuffs and you don't accept it you should get a choice in which way you should be taken down. With wrestling, jui-juitsu, tazered, strike, baton, one on one, group? It's nice to have a choice.

I remember hearing a couple days ago that Seattle has some age old law where a man can find another man if there is consent. The police officer basically gets the job as a referee. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Epikur

[Onemanwolfpac]

The problem is much simpler. The addition of government intervention has wrecked the community. The removal of fathers, the destruction of the nuclear family, murder within the community, abortion, crime, and a variety of other things are the issues. It is intellectual dishonest to blame the cops for the problem in the community. The intervention by government has destroyed the community. 

[Onemanwolfpac]

10 hours ago, lmfao said:

J

The same isn't true for say, a toaster, or a videogame.
---
The majority of people who sell drugs don't commit other crimes.
My pothead younger brother sells drugs, that fucker wouldn't harm a fly.
 

It puts into perspective that, marijuana is bad until government taxes it. Interesting! 

You get arrested for counterfeit money but government can print off all kinds forcing inflation. 

The system is not perfect but we're seeing academia raising the bar for Asians who do exceptionally well. Education particularly in stem is important, pays well, and the bar is raised because of being Asian which is racist just because of affirmative action. 

If we were to check bank accounts for those looting and rioting, which of these citizens majored in stem? What am i to imagine that there bank accounts look like? How about the woman who deficated on the cop car, covered in tattoos? 

A good way out of poverty is education and not majoring in stupid shit. Slinging drugs and living in squalor is not a good thing. Its not about weed. Its person A thinks they hard and person B is hard who shoots person A taking their money and drugs. The idea of defund police when the following is going on is the height of stupidity. The people saying defund aren't majoring in stem and likely couldn't at gun point. As in, not intellectually capable. The woman pooped on a cop car definitely lack the capacity for a stem degree. 

Reform is needed but for actual change, it starts on a individual level. There's far too many sheep. Mainstream media is abysmal in perpetuating the problems. The more reliance on government, the worse it will be. 

[Forestluv]

“But here's where the real problems are:

If a black person gets arrested...
He doesn't have the education to really know his rights.
The public defender lawyer piece of shit, has no respect for "Javon".

The nig*** knows that once he enters the criminal justice system, he's donzo.
So he has to fight. 
What choice does he have?”

This is one of the points I’ve been trying to articulate. Unfortunately, this voice has little power and isn’t heard.

The stakes for a young black male are higher than for me as a young white male. When I was young, I had a variety of low to moderate offenses: public intoxication, belligerence, DUIs, shoplifting, driving on the revoked list and yes, even resisting arrest while I was drunk. This did not all occur in upper class white neighborhoods. Many of the incidents happened in inner cities. Over and over again, I was given a second chance, then a third chance, then a fourth chance. . . Finally, I shifted gears, went back to school and started a successful career. I had that opportunity, because there were no long lasting consequences. I was never placed in the prison system and I didn’t have any record that would flag me during an employer background check. Yet for a young black inner city male, the stakes are different. They are commonly jailed for the same behavior that I got a slap on the wrist for. If I had gone to prison for something like cannabis possession and suffered through prison for a trivial offense, the game changes. I am now at a huge disadvantage toward getting my life back together. I now perceive the police and judicial system as adversaries. They are not on my side. They are not supportive advocates. Once I’ve entered the criminal justice system, I’m donzo. Now, if I’m approached by a cop for a relatively minor offense like cannabis possession, minor shoplifting or urinating in a back alley, the stakes are much higher. Once in the pipeline, I know I’m going back to prison for this. This increases the incentive to run away or fight. If I’ve already endured prison life over a minor offense, why would I give up over another minor offense if giving up means going back to hellish prison?