"... a nose dive in low-level policing... Citations for traffic violations fell by 94 percent... for low-level offenses like public drinking and urination also plunged 94 percent... parking violations are way down, dropping by 92 percent...."
The NY Post reports.
December 30, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
427 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 427 of 427@HoodlumDoodlum
A free good is one that does not require the expenditure of scarce resources to produce. Air is just there. No one produced it, and everyone can use as much as he wants without preventing anyone else from using as much as she wants. Another example of a free good is sea water; another is heat from the sun.
Public and private goods require the expenditure of resources to produce. The defining characteristic of such goods is that producing them entails opportunity costs. Money spent on national defense (a public good) could have been used for some other purpose by the government, or taxes could be reduced and the money used by private citizens to produce private goods.
The difference between public and private goods is that public goods raise insoluble free rider problems. If I refuse to contribute to national defense, I will still receive the benefits of an adequate defense. So I have no incentive to contribute unless the government forces me to. The owner of a private good can, at least in principle, prevent others from benefiting from the good without his permission (usually for a price).
Some goods can be either public or private, depending on the circumstances. Highways are usually built and maintained by governments. But sometimes private businesses are given franchises to build highways and charge tolls for using them.
"Why, jr565? The question is why, morally, that is so."
MOrally has nothing to do with it. Govt can do it because it regulates commerce and writes laws.The French govt can raise taxes to 99%.It can do that. It will then need to deal with the consequences of such an action. Just because its a stupid idea doesn't mean they don't have the authority to make the choice.
jr565, a deliberately extreme example: if a country had a law that all mothers must present their first-born son to the government to be killed, would you say, "The law is the law. You must obey."?
In other words, are there any circumstances where you think a law does not have to be obeyed? Is a law ever illegitimate?
Would it be okay if the government required the first-born to be presented so they could be taken away and spend the rest of their lives as the government's armed forces? If they only had to serve until age 20?
Roger,
The law is the law and does have to be obeyed. But certainly there are laws that I would refuse to obey. Which would make me an outlaw or a rebel if I was caught.
when do you ever say the law is the law and I must obey? Do you obey speed limits? Do you pay your taxes? Do you run stop signs? do you sell loosies? Do you deface property? Do you murder? What laws do you obey?
Do you protest cop shootings by taking over bridges and blocking traffic?
If we don't say the law is the law, then it's essentially there for us to obey or ignore at our preference. That laws ok, so I'll obey that one. That one I don't like so I'll ingnore it. Don't think we really get that choice.
I obey speed limits to the extent that people around me obey speed limits--which is to say I often go five or ten miles per hour above the posted limit. I pay taxes except for income taxes on some cash transactions. I have occasionally run stop signs when there was no other traffic. I do not sell loosies or deface property or murder anyone (or take over bridges or block traffic--though I have traveled with a mass of other people to get across a street even when we did not have the right of way). I am not ashamed.
Happy New Year, everybody!
Thanks for another year of blogging, Althouse!
jr565 said...Govt can do it because it regulates commerce and writes laws.
Earlier you indicated you believe in a "free market" jr565. Given your professed attitude toward gov power and "the law is the law" I don't understand what the "free" in free market actually means to you.
Roger, if going above the speed limit a cop pulls you over do you recognize ther the cop has a right to pull you over because you are technically breaking the law
Hoodlum, believe in low taxes, few regulations and fair trade. Don't see how requiring a business license prevents that.
I'm not exactly a fan of deblasios high cig taxes I just don't think black markets are legitimate.
Especially when we have a rule of law and an economy that requires licensing. You don't get unfettered capitalism for you but licenses for everybody else when the law says if you want to sell stuff you follow
The rules.
Five states with no sales tax
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/05/the-5-states-with-no-sales-tax/
The states can set what tax rules they want. If peope want to do business in those states they follow the rules in the state. There too the law is the law. If they think that works best for them thy get to set the rules and those doing business have to follow those rules.
jr565 believes in "few regulations".
Original Mike believes jr565 is the least self aware person on the planet.
Blogger jr565 said...
A license says you are a legitimate business and that you agree to abide by the laws that govern your specific business
The state doesn't know anything about business.
Why should they have a say on how you run it?
Goodnight, all; have happy New Years--law permitting.
Yup. But since I'm never going faster than the surrounding traffic, I would be very surprised if it happened.
Most every American exceeds a posted speed limit when we drive. We are, just about all of us, technically outlaws. A cop could single one of us out and give that one a ticket, perhaps making her pay more than a hundred dollar fine, getting "points" on her license, and raising her insurance payment. The cop has that legal right. But I don't think it is morally right.
Better would be a system of laws that are more realistic. However, the legislative (and regulatory) process has a fair amount of pretending and posturing. So like most people, I break any number of laws, some without knowing it.
Speaking of pretending and posturing. If you believe that all the permits and licenses you need to get in NYC are required for public health and safety, I've got some Iraqi nuclear weapons I could sell you.
Sgt. Ted and others:
"Lethal" is defined as "sufficient to cause death." The application of force to Garner caused his death. Put another way, without the force, he would not have died.
"Lethal" is a description of result, not intent.
Wisconsin law uses the term "deadly force." Deadly Force" is the intentional use of a firearm or other instrument, the use of which would result in a high probability of death. Strangely, Garner was also the name of the person involved in Tennessee v. Garner, in which the Supreme Court held used the 4th Amendment to restrict the right of police to apply "deadly force" to a fleeing (and by implication resistant) suspect.
So, at least in my view, deadly force is not always lethal, and force which has lethal effect is not always deadly force under the law. As in this case.
Just semantics? You might argue that. But if you are going to excoriate me for being "wrong," you might want to get your terminology correct when doing so.
jr565 said...
The French govt can raise taxes to 99%.It can do that. It will then need to deal with the consequences of such an action.
Wrong again, Jr. "Excessive" taxes on income are unconstitutional in France, and in 2012 the French Constitutional Council invalidated a 75% tax on that basis. The govt. later revamped the tax and limited its effect in several ways (including expiration at the end of this year) to get it approved.
Furious_a,
"Airlift in some Roof Koreans from L.A. "
Good grief, roof-Korean bro! Get your finger off the trigger... it's your own foot you're about to shoot!
(Also, where on earth is your rifle???)
JR is a product of the public education system. Compliant and ready to accept anything the government tells him. If the government requires you to pay 5k for a blog we better just accept that.
Nobody reads the 4th amendment or the first anymore. You wouldn't even know there was a 9th amendment at all.
Wisconsin law uses the term "deadly force." Deadly Force" is the intentional use of a firearm or other instrument, the use of which would result in a high probability of death.
And, that was the problem, and why "lethal force" was used by some. Eric Garner likely did not die as a result of "deadly force", since the instrument used, and the way that it was used, rarely results in death. Garner's problem was that he was asthmatic and obese. If used against someone of normal health, size, and fitness, it apparently rarely kills, which is why it is taught in PDs around the country.
Someone around #300 or so said that they liked the regulatory state. But, there are a lot of problems with it, most notably that it shifts the country from a country of laws, to a country run by people. Here is one example: War on Coal: Mine closings in Kentucky kill 670 jobs. As of today, those jobs were terminated. Why? The root cause is that the Environmental lobby, intent on pushing us back to the 19th century (or earlier), in terms of energy usage, got President Obama to shut down a lot of the coal production in this country. Using bogus science, his minions, and their subordinates, issued the regulations that are killing the industry.
Who cares about old, dirty, coal?
Well, the same cabal has declared that their next target is fracking, and we can expect to see those regulations in the next year. Most of us appreciate gas prices nearing $2 a gallon, as well as the aspect of Russia imploding. And, they have mandated ridiculous CAFE standards using pretty well discredited Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change, etc. research, that they haven't bothered to do themselves, but instead conveniently accept as gospel.
The problem is that these major changes in energy process are the result of the election of a single man - Barack Obama. They are based on statutes passed decades ago to address very different threats (no - CO2 is not an air pollutant - it is a trace gas that is essential to life as we know it on this planet, and increased CO2 concentrations result in increased plant growth, and, thus, more food for humans).
One problem is that the courts have mandated what is termed Chevron deference to agency rule making, assuming that they are experts in their areas of responsibility. But, what we have seen, and most vividly under Obama, is that many agency decisions, rules, etc. are highly political by their nature, and bear little relationship to the reality of science or the laws that they are implemented to enforce. And, note how they are implemented by fiat, instead of running them through Congress.
It appears the NYPD has shot itself in the foot...Unnecessary arrests and harassment are down...there is no crime wave, no mayhem, no little old ladies being mugged in the streets...Maybe next jails can be turned into schools and homeless shelters with all the money saved...
Back this up with community policing, and NY comes out of this a winner and a new model for other big cities...
Post a Comment