Comment by drzaiusapelord | Hacker News Reader

Comment by drzaiusapelord | Hacker News Reader

Even though liberals will deny this, the main issue here is that police unions are completely out of control and have this kind of power. The Independent Police Review Authority is full of union stooges, ex-cops, etc and is designed to protect cops.

The real question is when will we start having the political will to question public sector unions? They seem to only make city services more expensive, more corrupt, and in the case of cops, lead to legalized murder.

Decent piece on how this board and the union work to protect bad cops. You just can't expect the police to police themselves.

http://www.wbez.org/news/who-polices-police-chicago-its-incr...

Now a WBEZ investigation raises questions about just how independent the agency is. City records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show that IPRA’s management now includes six former cops — officials who have spent most of their career in sworn law enforcement. Those include the agency’s top three leaders.

I see no problem with having a police union who considers it their job to aggressively advocate for their membership. That's what unions are for, and frankly most types of workers would be better off with an organization on their side who would advocate tirelessly for them.

I also think accused criminals should have an organization that advocates for them. We can call them public defenders. And so on.

The problem isn't that there is a police union, or even that it's an effective or powerful one, it's that the union should not be in the business of overseeing misconduct investigations, except in a clearly understood adversarial role as an advocate for the accused.

You can throw out insults to liberals and insert your preconceived bias against public sector unions all you want if it serves your political agenda, but at the end of the day nobody rational is arguing in favor of this system, liberals especially so.

I'm always impressed when people make cogent points, but then go out of their way to ensure nobody listens by gratuitously insulting most of their audience.

>"Even though liberals will deny this..."

This blanket assumption is probably why you're being down-voted. The easiest way to avoid this is by supporting your statements with as many facts as possible.

A simple google search proved that this is not at all the case, for example, and that Republicans show much stronger support of police unions.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/12/the-gop-and...

This selective support among Republicans suggests that you're addressing the wrong crowd.

It will be very hard to pin the problems with Chicago on Republicans.

I think you're replying to the wrong comment? drzaiusapelord was the poster who suggested that partisan views would be a barrier to reform.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that a lack of political opposition in any circumstance, regardless of the party itself, will lead to anti-democratic behavior.

The real issue is that police overwhelmingly enjoy an uncritical view by the voting public such that no politician can afford not to support them. What needs to disappear is the misplaced support for police among the public.

Are you saying Governors have no power over the cities that reside in their state?

From 1977 to 2003 Republicans were in control of Illinois executive office. 26 years in a row.

From 1972 to 1991, Jon Burge running the show as Chicago police commander.

Are you trying to say that Republican governors had no power to investigate/curtail the evil that was brewing under his leadership?

hehe.

They have very little. The CPD is managed by the city which is under Democratic machine politics rule.

If you're downvoting, is it because of the "machine politics" expression, or because the person's point is invalid? It seems like a valid counterpoint to the statement that the CPD was not, in fact, influenced by the Republican governor.

This is Chicago, we really have no republicans in power.

The downvotes are just knee-jerk stupidity because the MSM doesn't report much on union abuse and unions largely get a free pass in the US for political reasons. Democrats won't go after them as they more or less pay for Democratic campaigns.

...just knee-jerk stupidity...

You aren't helping yourself.

As a non-American, I find it interesting how so many Americans (especially online commenters) refer to other Americans only as liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican these days.

Is America that polarized? Or, are the people with more complex views (i.e., having both liberal and conservative viewpoints) just less likely to speak out?

Yes, and yes.

America is that polarized, and when people with more nuanced views speak up, they tend to get shouted down immediately by the "side" that sees some aspect of "the other side"'s views in the nuance, drowning them out in the noise.

Want to make a nuanced point in a discussion about gun control? You're probably from Kenya, too. Want to make a subtle distinction in a debate about investment banks, or energy policy? You must hate poor people, or the planet, or...

Net, we (or at least I) tend not to get involved in political discussions, as I'm almost invariably going to have to spend more time arguing about how I'm not actually a filthy lib'ral or whatever, than about the point I'd wanted to make in the first place, so fuck it. You guys have fun shouting yourselves hoarse and slapping yourselves on the back for how hateful you can be towards random strangers on the internet.

Or if you advocate more Libertarian principles/discussion, you're immediately told to "move to Somalia". Yes, I've gotten that one on HN even, IIRC.

I guess it depends on exactly how "Libertarian" a view one is espousing.

"Why should I have to pay for a fire department? My house isn't on fire!" Yeah, that guy needs to move to Somalia. Not so he can experience what that degree of government-free state is actually like, but rather so the rest of us don't have to put up with that kind of idiocy.

Just because you can't conceive up voluntary methods of community-funded fire-protection services, doesn't mean the concept is "idiotic".

I'm going to pass on getting into another Freedom discussion, seeing as you're already off to referring to certain ideas as "idiocy". Hardly the platform for a decent, logical debate on the topic.

Who funds the "community-funded" fire protection services if not the community? That is, the people who would stand to benefit from those services, should they ever find their house on fire.

The most "libertarian" example of a community funded fire service I've ever heard of is the one where you pay "dues" to the fire department, and they'll come put out the fire if your house ever catches. If you don't, they'll come up to your property line and make sure the fire doesn't spread, but otherwise just stand there, watching your shit burn.

This actually happens, and I have exactly zero sympathy for the people who don't pay in.

That's what I'm talking about when I say "idiocy": people who claim to be Libertarian, but whose attitude is more, "Fuck you, I've got mine!" punctuated by, "Oh, shit! Someone expend community resources to help me with this!" You don't get to have it both ways; either you contribute meaningfully to the upkeep of the society whose membership you wish to benefit from, or you don't get to benefit from participation in that society.

EDIT: Sorry, I guess, if my tone is dismissive or offensive. I'm just sick to death of people walking around, talking a "Taxes Я theft!" position, but who expect to benefit from the things that those taxes pay for.

How do you handle housing where owners share at least one wall with their neighbors?

If it were up to me, I'd make owning property with a "party wall" contingent upon membership in some form of home-owner's association, the dues of which are used to pay the dues to such a community fire brigade, as well as things like insurance on the common parts of the building, and such.

I'm not sure how you'd handle delinquency in paying those dues, but it would probably be somehow legally actionable.

EDIT: It's probably somewhat moot, anyway, as the overwhelming majority of these dues-based fire brigades exist in predominantly rural areas, where party walls aren't typically a thing.

The issue with having complex views is that minority opinion doesn't really matter in a democracy. So people gravitate towards one of two largest pieces of the pie and tie their beliefs in to match that pie.

Even if someone subscribes to say "85%" of "most liberal beliefs and ideologies" they're still a liberal/Democrat and will be held to believe 100% of the "commonplace beliefs".

This is why all Republicans are blanket-washed as religious nutcase, global warming denying bigots. While all the Liberals are caricatures of 1984's Thought Police.

"Or, are the people with more complex views (i.e., having both liberal and conservative viewpoints) just less likely to speak out?"

In my experience it's more that people with complex viewpoints get some combination of shouted down by zealots on either side or sick of arguing with ideologues who aren't capable of having rational discussion with an open mind.

Basically the "us against them" message has been sold the members of both parties and prevents intelligent discourse.

As non-american leaving here for 15 years now I think that Americans like binary options. Good/evil, democrat/republican, socialist/capitalist.

Often the media enforces that.

Please just stop acting like a jerk. These sorts of problems exist in many jurisdictions spanning all sorts of political boundaries.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

All cycles, top donors EVER are dominated by unions giving to democrats. Its 100% a partisan issue.

I'm not sure you're applying facts correctly. I'm sorry but I think you need to calm down in general an take a more critical approach to your ideas.

Police unions are a special kind of thuggish killer-protection union, I would not lump them in with the rest of public sector unions.

I would, even if other public sector unions don't result in a physical war on the public. All public sector unions have the same imbalance of power as police unions: they have the power to withhold vital public services, the very reason we accept the problems with government as an institution, and they do it for personal gain. If a Kellogs plant goes on strike, I can still buy cereal from Post. If a transit union goes on strike, 10% of the city can't get to work. Unions are a collusion power that we accept as a counterbalance to the collusion power that businesses have over us. Why would we ever give government the power to collude against us?

Yeah, but if a unionized bus driver runs you over, their union is not going to come out and say bullshit like "he threw himself under the bus" or "drivers should be allowed to drive over threatening pedestrians". There's a difference between public sector unions going on a legal strike (or even a wildcat strike!) and police /breaking the law to the point of killing people that had no business getting killed by cops, and getting supported in doing so/.

E.g. teachers' unions are subject to the same basic dynamic. The only difference is that the fallout from protecting bad teachers is usually not fatal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com