Hacker News Reader

Comment by N0b8ez | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

Do you think Bukele is a "good leader"?

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

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

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com