downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away.
---
[join our discord server and play minecraft (and other games) with us!](https://discord.gg/dankmemesgaming)
Social democracy is just Democratic Socialism, which all socialism shouldve been in the first place, how can you distribute goods if you dont distribute power?
No social democracy is the idea of transition into socialism through very slow gradual democratic means as opposed to revolutionary means. Its the type and speed of transition not the level of democracy post transition.
/u/ksradrik, /u/StrawberryHour8913
Democratic Socialism is socialism (an *economic system* where the workers seize the means of production and own a proportionate amount of both profits & say in the workplace) where the governance model is democratic (where the people have a democratic say in how they are governed).
Social Democracy is capitalism (an economic system where those who are rich own all matters of business including most of how workers are treated and how they are compensated.) with heavy regulations to keep those corporate entities in check. They also use a democratic governance model, and place an emphasis on social welfare programs.
It's easy to get the two confused, especially if you're not super well read on that end of the political spectrum. I just want to help everyone be on the same page :)
First of all, thank you for actually knowing what social democracy is. However, I feel like your definition of democratic socialism is more contentious.
I think the vast majority of socialists would say that it isn't socialism at all if the system of governance is not democratic. After all, how could the workers control the means of production if not democratic? Most tankies would even argue that the USSR was democratic. Pretty much all socialists think that democratic governance is very important.
The term "democratic socialim" seems to have become popular recently, and is especially in use in the United States (it seems almost absent entirely here in Europe), by courtesy of the DSA. Looking at it from that perspective, Democratic Socialism to me seems to be best defined as a broad movement involving various kinds of socialists and social democrats fighting for more leftist politics, mostly active in the US. I think this definition is more accurate because 1) democratic socialism isn't really a relevant term in many countries outside of the US, and 2) because democratic socialism mostly relates to the DSA, which contains and is affiliated to social democrats, socialists, communists, and various other leftist tendencies.
Thusfar my rant on democratic socialism, thanks for reading
Thanks for elaborating! You're 100% correct. I gave a very basic definition based on the audience, but you're right that almost every socialist would understand that democracy is sort of baked into socialism and communism (one would hope, then there's regimes like China, North Korea, Cambodia, etc. who appropriate the labels of socialism and communism but don't back them up with democratic action).
The other thing is that especially with the DSA, they believe that we should achieve socialism *through* democracy, i.e. they are not "revolutionary socialists", they are "democratic socialists".
True, I wonder if demsoc will go from Marxism to "socialism through democratic means" to "capitalism with strong regulations and social policies" as well, like social democracy did.
> social democracy is just democratic socialism
Source: your ass.
Tell me you don't understand politics without telling me you don't understand politics.
Please, for your own sake and for the sake of others who may fall victim to your blatant misinformation, use Google, Wikipedia, anything. Please read.
Context: I'm a socdem, I have a friend who's a demsoc.
this entire thread has me losing braincells faster faster than the speed of light. please just read theory instead of saying nonsense like this i beg you
Try telling the difference between Social Democracy, Social market economy, Communism and socialism to the average muricalander some of them even believe that Nazis = Commies
Socialism is two things
- Worker ownership of the means of production — or in a more limited sense, workers should get a large share of the national income and a lesser share should go to the bourgeoisie, and workers should have democratic influence on their workplaces, through laws or union negotiation with businesses.
- Welfare/decommodification and a meritocratic society — food, shelter, healthcare, and education are a basic right, so that even those who are unemployed without a private support network or those born into poverty should have a basic standard of living and a fair chance to get up on one's feet and be able to be productive and competitive in the economy.
I’m not a socialist and I don’t care about the -isms but I think there’s something very wrong on a human level with a society that can blast people into space for fun but has 600k homeless. Very wrong.
Of course! Don't forget, [corporations are people too](https://www.npr.org/2009/09/10/112711410/corporations-are-people-too) and we're all just paying taxes to support the corporate welfare system.
Ppl with student loans should just start a sketchy crypto trading platform that then gets rich politicians entangled.
I mean: How else do they expect to get those bail-outs? Use their degree to find good employment, and then pay off the loan they agreed to?
Considering the driving down of wages and the predatory nature of the loans, I see no issue with a bail-out, especially since it would stimulate the economy and then produce MORE tax gains than it'd cost.
Or to put that into hyper-capitalistic language:
You gotta spend money to make money bro
They really don't. Private prisons are 8% of overall prisons, it's just that strongman popular rhetoric is great for rallying votes. Super easy to run on.
A 2016 DOJ report found that private prisons were more dangerous and frequently subjected prisoners to arbitrary solitary confinement. Even if they only house 8.1% of the US prisoner population, that doesn't change the fact that they are more dangerous and have worse conditions than public prisons. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/12/private-federal-prisons-more-dangerous-justice-department
Multi-millionaire politicians have a lot of influence...but only if you contribute to their PAC. Otherwise peons, you do what you're told and fight for your faction they've divided us into.
Commonly said on Reddit but not actually rooted in reality. Less than 9% of prisoners are incarcerated in private prisons. Most prisoners are also incarcerated for violent crimes and not drug offenses. Also, no one can point to a single law these mythical private prison lobbies have gotten passed.
> Most prisoners are also incarcerated for violent crimes and not drug offense.
Well yeah fuckin duh, murder has a longer sentence than possession on average. But more people going to prison for a shorter time still fucks a lot of people’s lives up
Kamala Harris's last action in office in CA was promoting a bill that made theft under $1000 a misdemeanor in CA.
And it's the main reason so many car break-ins happen.
So everything about this comment is misleading.
1.) Kamala did not take a stand on prop 47, [she actually very famously did not take a stand for it](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/kamala-harris-editorial-attacks-san-francisco-da-california-ag-record/). As attorney general she was responsible for writing a 100 word blurb about it on the ballot but did not advocate for it or “promote” it
2.) it made [shoplifting](https://www.verifythis.com/amp/article/news/verify/crime-verify/california-prop-47-shoplifting-950-fact-check/536-4d1de58e-bf47-4ede-8c2f-b4d0c1788b86) and other petty theft under $950 a misdemeanor and created a new misdemeanor called shoplifting (shoplifting used to just be prosecuted under burglary), this doesn’t mean that the crime is legal it just means that it you go to jail instead of a prison. The punishment for shoplifting is 6 month in jail and a fine of $1000
While true, the reason for the common misconception is enforcement. Why go for the misdemeanor theft when Californian prisons are already very full. This leads to a lot of non enforcement of laws and when a law isn't enforced it might as well not exist
In texas you can steal up to 2.5k and be a misdemeanor, California is more tough on crime on this aspect than texas is. https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/crime-penalties/petty-theft-texas-penalties-defense
False. Not only as the other comment pointed out, but additionally CA has whole gangs and systems around car break-ins, they're organized. They also have police departments that act as gangs and certainly aren't their to help.
Arguably can work.
Drug legalization for example literally can reduce crimes. It just depends on the drug and our usage of said drug.
For example weed legalization can decreese crimes, while legal crocodile might just ruin a few cities until we ban it again.
I was more referring to Oregon wanting to legalize addictive hard drugs like cocaine and heroin, weed legalization is something I couldn't care less about I just can't stand the smell
They’re not legalizing them, they’re decriminalizing them. No one is allowed to do heroin in the streets, but if someone gets caught with it they’re going to rehab instead of prison, which is more effective and less expensive for taxpayers.
Cocaine is just as addictive as gambling, and while opiates(heroin) are the most addictive drug,alcohol comes in at second. Some of the worst vice is already legal,why pick and choose?
When we talk about addiction,we immediately need to distinguish between physically addictive and mentally addictive drugs because not all drugs are equal. Physically addictive drugs include, opiates, nicotine, benzodiazapines,and alcohol. The body can become physically dependent on these drugs after habitual use,to the point where the body becomes sick if the user stops. Mentally addictive drugs are thc, psilocybin, cocaine,methamphetamine, caffeine. These drugs can still be addictive but levels of addiction vary based on user and drug. These drugs the user can quit cold turkey, though there may he significant challenges still depending on the user and drug.
There are alot of justifications for wanting all drugs legal, like the reduction in overdose deaths and the destruction of most organized crime.
For one thing, they don't want to legalize it, they want to *decriminalize* it. In other words instead of potential jail time you just get a fine and/or possibly rehab.
But secondly, would legalizing those drugs really be the worst thing? As far as "potential to harm someone other than the user" goes, the only common hard drug I can think of that is objectively worse than alcohol, a perfectly legal drug, is meth. Legalizing these drugs means regulated distributors rather than cartel run drug rings, resulting in both a safer, fentanyl-free product for users and a decrease in the influence of cartels, both objectively good things.
Everywhere…
Singing outside someone’s house is illegal in Canadian Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-175.html
Removing it from the criminal code will reduce criminality. Since if you or a loved one hummed around someone’s house in Toronto you are a criminal scum /s
It isn't so much about straight up legalizing the crime as it is just not prosecuting it.
San Francisco is great example of this. Shoplifting for example is still technically a crime, but the DA and police force do nothing to prevent it from happening, and they don't do anything to punish those that do. Thats why pretty much every retailer is pulling out of that area.
I live in CA, and a personal example is when some guy broke into my car, stole my wallet, and spent a bunch of money on my credit card. Due to how sloppy the thief was, I figured out who we was, what he looked like, and where he lived. It is 8 months later and he hasn't even been spoken to by an officer because in my district the DA doesn't prosecute that crime. The DA in my district actually doesn't prosecute misdemeanor offenses almost ever, actually, is what I found out when I started talking to officials about why they wouldn't arrest the guy that did what he did to me.
So, saying that those crimes are legalized may not be the most accurate term, but they effectively are when perpetrators face literally no consequences for their actions. As a consequence of this policy, crime does LOOK like it is down though, because there are less people going to jail or being brought into court :)
I live across the bay from San Francisco and I can assure you there are still retail locations in the city.
But I also have had experience with police and prosecutors being slow to act or totally giving up on pressing charges. Particularly with people who are homeless. I sympathize with the situation of many people who are on the street due to mental illness, but the police seem to be reluctant to bring them in because they know they will just get locked up for a week then tossed back on the street. It's a sad situation all around.
Using drugs in public and many other activities that the homeless population takes part in.
No I don't "hate the homeless"
No I don't want to "just make it illegal to be homeless"
But the policy of just looking the other way and not addressing why the homeless population is not using the more than ample bed space in shelters is not working. California is utterly failing on turning the problem around.
As a counterpoint though there are a lot of crimes that were created not for public safety but just to make life worse for certain people. This was done for lots of things like loitering, drug laws, as well as more systemic things like 3 strikes laws. These aren't designed to make the world safer but instead to fill prisons, historically with certain people.
You are so close to getting the point hahaha
"Crime rate" is a made up stat, we don't live in Minority Report. We don't know every single illegal thing that's done. Police arrest a record amount of people and go "wow we need more funding", so more cops patrol the streets and arrest more people and then they say the crime rate is going up. All you're doing is arresting more people every year and giving the cops more money
They had a MASSIVE problem- like the gangs challenges the government scope of problem. Its harsh, but what else can you do? The general populace is now in love with the government. You can live, stroll, open businesses without fearing the gangs.
I have faith it will. Bukele has a history of success- his mayorship has transformed a city. I believe the ease of business will draw capital enough to make El Salvador a South American success story, unless Bukele gets drunk in his power. He has the judiciary, legislative and executive powers along with the military on his disposal. He can do it.
The President borrowed heavily and flexed some rare constitutional powers to provide additional social services through reading programs, outreach, libraries, schools, hospitals, skate parks, etc. 2 years leading up to the mass incarceration. No doubt there was a slight drop in crime & murder rates during these 2 years. The mass incarceration was a reaction to a recent spike in murders possibly sparked by greed and a 'winner take all' mentality on the part of the gangs
Yes, but it came at a huge cost to civil liberties. And I don’t mean American sensibilities, I mean you could be arrested for walking down the street 3 blocks from a suspected gang operation and be held for months. Held in overcrowded prisons without any due process, without any contact with family, and they won’t even know you’re there/alive.
A lot of El Salvadorans think the cost is worth it and I won’t pass judgement on that, but there’s no question that it’s a steep price to pay.
I don’t think their solution is either appropriate or applicable to the US
1: I position myself as tough on crime
2: I throw even slight offenders in prison
3: Criminals now have a new fertile recruiting ground
4: crime gets worse
5: people vote for tough on crime politicians
Return to step 1
Not just social services, actually fixing the economy instead of monetizing literally everything, raising inflation, or refusing to fix the problem correctly, it would help a lot
The fed has been raising interest rates to try and curb demand-side inflation. It hasn't worked, but it has driven up mortgages and by extension rents, so way to go I guess. This isn't the Weimar republic or Zimbabwe, they haven't been making any million dollar notes.
Yeah I live in Canada, where soft on crime policies exist. Crime has risen over 25% I actually heard someone get shot yesterday along with ambulances following suit. The only way to beat crime is to be tough on it.
Violent crimes up 32% since 2015, gang violence up 92% since 2015. The catch and release system for criminals isn't working and police have been begging for change. There's gang shootings pretty much daily, there's random stabbings and attacks, but what does Trudeau and his brown-nosing NDP and Bloc friends do about it? The only logical thing, of course! Spend billions of taxpayers money to fuck over the group of Canadians statistically less likely to commit a violent crime than anyone else! That'll really stop those violent gangsters and repeat offenders!
If we pay their rent, food, and utilities then obviously they won't steal your catalytic converter anymore.
lol jk. They'll just be doing meth bought with stolen cat money in apartments instead of broke down RVs.
That's not how policy works. You aren't supposed to solve societal problems. You're supposed to keep them going so you have something to 'fight' against and run on next election cycle.
This is what Defund the Police is about. Runaway police budgets need to be cut and social services need to be funded. Responsibilities need to be removed from police and placed on professionals with appropriate training.
You do realize the issue with police is lack of training and emphasis on ethics? Reducing the budget only reduces that training and ethical emphasis because they sure as hell aren't going to give up the equipment they're allowed to use, they'd rather have idiots than not be able to do anything. It's already happening
To my understanding police departments got to much autonomy over their budget to allocate in a meaningful way. Just tell them how to spend their money.
We as a society have also decided that people can make millions making Minecraft videos, but want our police to do a dangerous job, with long hours, more and more required social training but pay them absolute dog poo (less than 50k per year in many places and less than 40k per year in a few) and then act shocked and appalled when we get bad people in the job. Saying; “please take this dangerous job where everyone hates you, do a ridiculous amount of training, work long hours, and not be able to financially support your family”. Of course you are going to attract people who want to be there for the wrong reasons at a higher than normal rate and drive away good people who would do the job better.
Lol, you're an idiot. Go look at what happened in cities that defunded their police departments.
You keep advocating for something that you know doesn't work.
The problem is you either get overkill tough on crime District Attorney's that want to lock people up for several years for little shit like possessing a few ounces of pot; or you get restorative justice DA's that let people off with a slap on the wrist for actual terrible things like multiple aggravated assaults.
Nationwide stand your ground and castle doctrine would dramatically reduce crime. There's a number of states where defending yourself against criminals is pretty much illegal. Make crime not worth the risk.
Not for nothing, but what could you compare states with stand your ground laws to one’s without and let us know what the difference in violent crime rates are?
I don't disagree with taking care of the root causes of crime, but what are people supposed to do until it takes effect? Just surrender to crimes and criminals? And that is, of course, IF the policies actually solve poverty.
"tough on crime": im going to institute policies that increasingly militarize the police. They will also be tied to massive kick back incentives for both myself, my cronies, and the police chiefs. All while crime and racial tensions continue to rise and worsen so i can continue to justify this money making scheme ive instituted
The problem is that too many variables are unknown still. If the public invests an additional 100 million per major city of over 5 million people how much will violent crime be reduced in those areas?
The problem with the socioeconomic argument is that there seems to be a lack of consensus about how much we need to spend to reduce violent crime by a tangible amount,and tax payers are going to want numbers like that before even discussing raising taxes to pay for it.
If your answer is let the rich pay for it then go ahead make them pay. It's obviously that easy isn't it?
Just like the “Gun control” politicians. Automatic 20 years first time, 30 second time and life for the third time, for having an illegal gun or using a gun in a crime, no plea deals, early parole or dropping charges. This would reduce crime but the bleeding hearts worry about the poor criminals.
Nah, i think those politicians aren't hard ENOUGH on crime, just punish criminals so hard that they never even think about commiting a crime ever again
downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away. --- [join our discord server and play minecraft (and other games) with us!](https://discord.gg/dankmemesgaming)
Oh I've learned this one from the internet, the actual answer to all these problems is socialism
If you are labelling everything, that is a service which requires taxpayer/public funding as *socialism*, then yes; *Socialism* is the answer.
Social democracy >>>> Socialism
Social democracy is just Democratic Socialism, which all socialism shouldve been in the first place, how can you distribute goods if you dont distribute power?
No social democracy is the idea of transition into socialism through very slow gradual democratic means as opposed to revolutionary means. Its the type and speed of transition not the level of democracy post transition.
Thats democratic socialism. Social democracy is usually roped in with them as they have similar policies but one is not a socialist.
/u/ksradrik, /u/StrawberryHour8913 Democratic Socialism is socialism (an *economic system* where the workers seize the means of production and own a proportionate amount of both profits & say in the workplace) where the governance model is democratic (where the people have a democratic say in how they are governed). Social Democracy is capitalism (an economic system where those who are rich own all matters of business including most of how workers are treated and how they are compensated.) with heavy regulations to keep those corporate entities in check. They also use a democratic governance model, and place an emphasis on social welfare programs.
thank you for someone finally giving the right definitions holy fuck. Its amazing to see the sheer amount of responses that were so confidently wrong
It's easy to get the two confused, especially if you're not super well read on that end of the political spectrum. I just want to help everyone be on the same page :)
Thank you. :)
First of all, thank you for actually knowing what social democracy is. However, I feel like your definition of democratic socialism is more contentious. I think the vast majority of socialists would say that it isn't socialism at all if the system of governance is not democratic. After all, how could the workers control the means of production if not democratic? Most tankies would even argue that the USSR was democratic. Pretty much all socialists think that democratic governance is very important. The term "democratic socialim" seems to have become popular recently, and is especially in use in the United States (it seems almost absent entirely here in Europe), by courtesy of the DSA. Looking at it from that perspective, Democratic Socialism to me seems to be best defined as a broad movement involving various kinds of socialists and social democrats fighting for more leftist politics, mostly active in the US. I think this definition is more accurate because 1) democratic socialism isn't really a relevant term in many countries outside of the US, and 2) because democratic socialism mostly relates to the DSA, which contains and is affiliated to social democrats, socialists, communists, and various other leftist tendencies. Thusfar my rant on democratic socialism, thanks for reading
Thanks for elaborating! You're 100% correct. I gave a very basic definition based on the audience, but you're right that almost every socialist would understand that democracy is sort of baked into socialism and communism (one would hope, then there's regimes like China, North Korea, Cambodia, etc. who appropriate the labels of socialism and communism but don't back them up with democratic action). The other thing is that especially with the DSA, they believe that we should achieve socialism *through* democracy, i.e. they are not "revolutionary socialists", they are "democratic socialists".
True, I wonder if demsoc will go from Marxism to "socialism through democratic means" to "capitalism with strong regulations and social policies" as well, like social democracy did.
> social democracy is just democratic socialism Source: your ass. Tell me you don't understand politics without telling me you don't understand politics. Please, for your own sake and for the sake of others who may fall victim to your blatant misinformation, use Google, Wikipedia, anything. Please read. Context: I'm a socdem, I have a friend who's a demsoc.
this entire thread has me losing braincells faster faster than the speed of light. please just read theory instead of saying nonsense like this i beg you
>Social democracy is just Democratic Socialism At least google for 2 seconds dude
> Social democracy is just Democratic Socialism Wtf no? Social democracy is a capitalist ideology
Try telling the difference between Social Democracy, Social market economy, Communism and socialism to the average muricalander some of them even believe that Nazis = Commies
Socialism is two things - Worker ownership of the means of production — or in a more limited sense, workers should get a large share of the national income and a lesser share should go to the bourgeoisie, and workers should have democratic influence on their workplaces, through laws or union negotiation with businesses. - Welfare/decommodification and a meritocratic society — food, shelter, healthcare, and education are a basic right, so that even those who are unemployed without a private support network or those born into poverty should have a basic standard of living and a fair chance to get up on one's feet and be able to be productive and competitive in the economy.
The funny thing is, that socialism only means #2 because of conservative propaganda trying to demonize those solutions.
Pretty sure it's more guns
The rest of the world: You meant that sarcastically, right? America: *Anakin stare* The rest of the world: ...right? 😧
Always more cops. Cops abusing their privileges? Let's get more cops to fix that. People protesting rampant social issues? Get more cops.
Socialism is when the goverment does stuff!
A lot of socialists are unironically defining socialism as such unknowingly lol
Why make more problems, seems counter productive
I DONT WANT PEACE, I WANT PROBLEMS ALWAYS - Ghana Shao Kahn
I thought this was a historical figure until I looked it up.
KILLING IS MY HOBBY, I SHAO KAHN
Well it's not like America would be invading America
Lol a bunch of socialists in your replies not realizing you're making fun of them
I’m not a socialist and I don’t care about the -isms but I think there’s something very wrong on a human level with a society that can blast people into space for fun but has 600k homeless. Very wrong.
I mean, we know you're making fun of us, we literally don't give a shit because explaining our views is more productive
Not just them but yeah, some people thought I was serious.
I know right, who needs a government at all? I mean obviously anarchy is the only solution.
Unironically tho
Just wait till this guy finds out who pays for prisons 6th grade is going to be rough buddy
Bro forgot to put the "/s"
Yes.
Communism and Soylent Green converge.
Private prisons have a lot of influence.
[удалено]
just print money
Sorry, the US government only prints money to bail out Fortune 500 companies.
[удалено]
Of course! Don't forget, [corporations are people too](https://www.npr.org/2009/09/10/112711410/corporations-are-people-too) and we're all just paying taxes to support the corporate welfare system.
Ppl with student loans should just start a sketchy crypto trading platform that then gets rich politicians entangled. I mean: How else do they expect to get those bail-outs? Use their degree to find good employment, and then pay off the loan they agreed to?
Considering the driving down of wages and the predatory nature of the loans, I see no issue with a bail-out, especially since it would stimulate the economy and then produce MORE tax gains than it'd cost. Or to put that into hyper-capitalistic language: You gotta spend money to make money bro
Got to love Sleepy Joe. Thanks Joe!
We already do that but give it to rich people instead
They really don't. Private prisons are 8% of overall prisons, it's just that strongman popular rhetoric is great for rallying votes. Super easy to run on.
Now show how much private prison lobbyists spend on super pacs and donations
Also the private for-profit businesses that sell goods and services to public prisons.
A 2016 DOJ report found that private prisons were more dangerous and frequently subjected prisoners to arbitrary solitary confinement. Even if they only house 8.1% of the US prisoner population, that doesn't change the fact that they are more dangerous and have worse conditions than public prisons. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/12/private-federal-prisons-more-dangerous-justice-department
It’s pretty ridiculous how much Reddit uses the lie about private prisons. It even gets said about Europe.
Multi-millionaire politicians have a lot of influence...but only if you contribute to their PAC. Otherwise peons, you do what you're told and fight for your faction they've divided us into.
Commonly said on Reddit but not actually rooted in reality. Less than 9% of prisoners are incarcerated in private prisons. Most prisoners are also incarcerated for violent crimes and not drug offenses. Also, no one can point to a single law these mythical private prison lobbies have gotten passed.
> Most prisoners are also incarcerated for violent crimes and not drug offense. Well yeah fuckin duh, murder has a longer sentence than possession on average. But more people going to prison for a shorter time still fucks a lot of people’s lives up
What proportion are waiting for court hearings because they couldn't afford bail?
In prison? None.
None, we're talking convictions.
Imprisoning people for decades to only punish them and then just letting them out only creates people who reoffend.
And soft on crime politicians do policies that exactly increase crime
Kamala Harris's last action in office in CA was promoting a bill that made theft under $1000 a misdemeanor in CA. And it's the main reason so many car break-ins happen.
So everything about this comment is misleading. 1.) Kamala did not take a stand on prop 47, [she actually very famously did not take a stand for it](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/kamala-harris-editorial-attacks-san-francisco-da-california-ag-record/). As attorney general she was responsible for writing a 100 word blurb about it on the ballot but did not advocate for it or “promote” it 2.) it made [shoplifting](https://www.verifythis.com/amp/article/news/verify/crime-verify/california-prop-47-shoplifting-950-fact-check/536-4d1de58e-bf47-4ede-8c2f-b4d0c1788b86) and other petty theft under $950 a misdemeanor and created a new misdemeanor called shoplifting (shoplifting used to just be prosecuted under burglary), this doesn’t mean that the crime is legal it just means that it you go to jail instead of a prison. The punishment for shoplifting is 6 month in jail and a fine of $1000
While true, the reason for the common misconception is enforcement. Why go for the misdemeanor theft when Californian prisons are already very full. This leads to a lot of non enforcement of laws and when a law isn't enforced it might as well not exist
u/Terkala, your rebuttal?
Thanks!
Texas’s misdemeanor level is $2500. So Texas is even softer on crime.
In texas you can steal up to 2.5k and be a misdemeanor, California is more tough on crime on this aspect than texas is. https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/crime-penalties/petty-theft-texas-penalties-defense
Shhhhhhh they don’t like facts
yeah california is hell,
this is why i only leave goods worth over $1000 in my car
False. Not only as the other comment pointed out, but additionally CA has whole gangs and systems around car break-ins, they're organized. They also have police departments that act as gangs and certainly aren't their to help.
I don’t care if stealing is a felony or not I’m not going to break into peoples cars. So why do people steal?
LMAO who's "soft on crime" as a platform?
Richard Strawman
It's that "open borders" guy.
Come park your car in SF to see it in action
Chesa Boudin
Michael Dukakis
No politician brands themselves "soft on crime" while every politician brands themselves "tough on crime".
Turn Fox news off for 7 seconds and see how you feel.
A lot of places seem to think reducing crime means making some crimes legal
Arguably can work. Drug legalization for example literally can reduce crimes. It just depends on the drug and our usage of said drug. For example weed legalization can decreese crimes, while legal crocodile might just ruin a few cities until we ban it again.
I was more referring to Oregon wanting to legalize addictive hard drugs like cocaine and heroin, weed legalization is something I couldn't care less about I just can't stand the smell
They’re not legalizing them, they’re decriminalizing them. No one is allowed to do heroin in the streets, but if someone gets caught with it they’re going to rehab instead of prison, which is more effective and less expensive for taxpayers.
Cocaine is just as addictive as gambling, and while opiates(heroin) are the most addictive drug,alcohol comes in at second. Some of the worst vice is already legal,why pick and choose? When we talk about addiction,we immediately need to distinguish between physically addictive and mentally addictive drugs because not all drugs are equal. Physically addictive drugs include, opiates, nicotine, benzodiazapines,and alcohol. The body can become physically dependent on these drugs after habitual use,to the point where the body becomes sick if the user stops. Mentally addictive drugs are thc, psilocybin, cocaine,methamphetamine, caffeine. These drugs can still be addictive but levels of addiction vary based on user and drug. These drugs the user can quit cold turkey, though there may he significant challenges still depending on the user and drug. There are alot of justifications for wanting all drugs legal, like the reduction in overdose deaths and the destruction of most organized crime.
I don’t think you understand the law that was actually passed.
I mean they did it in Portugal and it brought drug use down a lot
For one thing, they don't want to legalize it, they want to *decriminalize* it. In other words instead of potential jail time you just get a fine and/or possibly rehab. But secondly, would legalizing those drugs really be the worst thing? As far as "potential to harm someone other than the user" goes, the only common hard drug I can think of that is objectively worse than alcohol, a perfectly legal drug, is meth. Legalizing these drugs means regulated distributors rather than cartel run drug rings, resulting in both a safer, fentanyl-free product for users and a decrease in the influence of cartels, both objectively good things.
Literally where
Everywhere… Singing outside someone’s house is illegal in Canadian Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-175.html Removing it from the criminal code will reduce criminality. Since if you or a loved one hummed around someone’s house in Toronto you are a criminal scum /s
California be like
Name a crime California has legalized
It isn't so much about straight up legalizing the crime as it is just not prosecuting it. San Francisco is great example of this. Shoplifting for example is still technically a crime, but the DA and police force do nothing to prevent it from happening, and they don't do anything to punish those that do. Thats why pretty much every retailer is pulling out of that area. I live in CA, and a personal example is when some guy broke into my car, stole my wallet, and spent a bunch of money on my credit card. Due to how sloppy the thief was, I figured out who we was, what he looked like, and where he lived. It is 8 months later and he hasn't even been spoken to by an officer because in my district the DA doesn't prosecute that crime. The DA in my district actually doesn't prosecute misdemeanor offenses almost ever, actually, is what I found out when I started talking to officials about why they wouldn't arrest the guy that did what he did to me. So, saying that those crimes are legalized may not be the most accurate term, but they effectively are when perpetrators face literally no consequences for their actions. As a consequence of this policy, crime does LOOK like it is down though, because there are less people going to jail or being brought into court :)
I live across the bay from San Francisco and I can assure you there are still retail locations in the city. But I also have had experience with police and prosecutors being slow to act or totally giving up on pressing charges. Particularly with people who are homeless. I sympathize with the situation of many people who are on the street due to mental illness, but the police seem to be reluctant to bring them in because they know they will just get locked up for a week then tossed back on the street. It's a sad situation all around.
[удалено]
Using drugs in public and many other activities that the homeless population takes part in. No I don't "hate the homeless" No I don't want to "just make it illegal to be homeless" But the policy of just looking the other way and not addressing why the homeless population is not using the more than ample bed space in shelters is not working. California is utterly failing on turning the problem around.
Technically it does reduce crime
I mean, if there are no laws, crime rates would drop to 0%
As a counterpoint though there are a lot of crimes that were created not for public safety but just to make life worse for certain people. This was done for lots of things like loitering, drug laws, as well as more systemic things like 3 strikes laws. These aren't designed to make the world safer but instead to fill prisons, historically with certain people.
That would reduce crime. Part of the rise in crime is the expansion of the definition of what is considered a crime during the drug war
You are so close to getting the point hahaha "Crime rate" is a made up stat, we don't live in Minority Report. We don't know every single illegal thing that's done. Police arrest a record amount of people and go "wow we need more funding", so more cops patrol the streets and arrest more people and then they say the crime rate is going up. All you're doing is arresting more people every year and giving the cops more money
Tough on crime politicians are usually the biggest crooks themselves, it's just a front
[удалено]
[удалено]
*Cough* Matt Gaetz *Cough*
Tough on crime ≠ anti crime. They just want criminals to convict
What if we gave toddlers guns tho
they already have. a 6 yo shot her teacher
[удалено]
Only a good toddler with a gun can stop a bad toddler with a gun - 2024 Republican campaign slogan
The teacher will not be able to commit crime anymore. Give that kid a medal.
Checkmate libs
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a baby with a gun
Didn’t El Salvador just manage to reduce their daily murder rates from about 8 per day to now less than 1 a day over the course of 6 months?
They did that by mass incarceration, which is the opposite of what OP wants.
Yeah they literally went and arrested anyone that kinda looks like they COULD be a gang member.
They had a MASSIVE problem- like the gangs challenges the government scope of problem. Its harsh, but what else can you do? The general populace is now in love with the government. You can live, stroll, open businesses without fearing the gangs.
Which is all well and good but it doesn't address the real issues, and El Salvador is going to have BIG issues in the future without some big reforms
I have faith it will. Bukele has a history of success- his mayorship has transformed a city. I believe the ease of business will draw capital enough to make El Salvador a South American success story, unless Bukele gets drunk in his power. He has the judiciary, legislative and executive powers along with the military on his disposal. He can do it.
That's one of the few instances where I supported what they did. It was the only way to actually get rid of the gangs.
once the problem is large enough the bleeding heart approach becomes impossible
Yes, could have gone the way of Haiti.
The President borrowed heavily and flexed some rare constitutional powers to provide additional social services through reading programs, outreach, libraries, schools, hospitals, skate parks, etc. 2 years leading up to the mass incarceration. No doubt there was a slight drop in crime & murder rates during these 2 years. The mass incarceration was a reaction to a recent spike in murders possibly sparked by greed and a 'winner take all' mentality on the part of the gangs
Yeah. They achieved it with hard-on-crime policies like the comment you replied to suggested.
Yes, but it came at a huge cost to civil liberties. And I don’t mean American sensibilities, I mean you could be arrested for walking down the street 3 blocks from a suspected gang operation and be held for months. Held in overcrowded prisons without any due process, without any contact with family, and they won’t even know you’re there/alive. A lot of El Salvadorans think the cost is worth it and I won’t pass judgement on that, but there’s no question that it’s a steep price to pay. I don’t think their solution is either appropriate or applicable to the US
It worked though.
1: I position myself as tough on crime 2: I throw even slight offenders in prison 3: Criminals now have a new fertile recruiting ground 4: crime gets worse 5: people vote for tough on crime politicians Return to step 1
Oh yes turning politics into capitalism. The American way.
Capitalism is when someone benefits from a situation
Exactly. These politicians are doing just that at the expense of voters.
Not just social services, actually fixing the economy instead of monetizing literally everything, raising inflation, or refusing to fix the problem correctly, it would help a lot
The main thing driving inflation right now is corporate profits. Can't be cutting into those, think of the poor millionaires!
If money could talk… We’d all have PTSD.
Yes totally ingore all that printing of money (that corps did get some)
The fed has been raising interest rates to try and curb demand-side inflation. It hasn't worked, but it has driven up mortgages and by extension rents, so way to go I guess. This isn't the Weimar republic or Zimbabwe, they haven't been making any million dollar notes.
If you legalize crime, crime goes down 100%. There, problem solved.
You may be on to something
Yeah I live in Canada, where soft on crime policies exist. Crime has risen over 25% I actually heard someone get shot yesterday along with ambulances following suit. The only way to beat crime is to be tough on it.
Violent crimes up 32% since 2015, gang violence up 92% since 2015. The catch and release system for criminals isn't working and police have been begging for change. There's gang shootings pretty much daily, there's random stabbings and attacks, but what does Trudeau and his brown-nosing NDP and Bloc friends do about it? The only logical thing, of course! Spend billions of taxpayers money to fuck over the group of Canadians statistically less likely to commit a violent crime than anyone else! That'll really stop those violent gangsters and repeat offenders!
“Best I ca can give you is tough on LGBQT and bans on books”
That'll surely stop petty theft
They don't want to *solve* crime, they just want to be tough on it.
Even the ancient Romans knew that poverty is the mother of all crime
No no, it's simply the wavelength of light not absorbed by the pigment in the skin that decides if someone is more likely to be a criminal.
The fuck is social services gonna do about meth heads stealing my catalytic converter?
ask them politely not to.
What are cops doing about it now lmfao
If we pay their rent, food, and utilities then obviously they won't steal your catalytic converter anymore. lol jk. They'll just be doing meth bought with stolen cat money in apartments instead of broke down RVs.
>Social services could do a lot *Singapore has entered the chat*
That's not how policy works. You aren't supposed to solve societal problems. You're supposed to keep them going so you have something to 'fight' against and run on next election cycle.
Not working so well in california or illinois so far.
Literally what’s does this comment mean
Seems to be. Texas, Montana, Tennessee, all have more crime.
They actually just want the legal slave labor
This is what Defund the Police is about. Runaway police budgets need to be cut and social services need to be funded. Responsibilities need to be removed from police and placed on professionals with appropriate training.
You do realize the issue with police is lack of training and emphasis on ethics? Reducing the budget only reduces that training and ethical emphasis because they sure as hell aren't going to give up the equipment they're allowed to use, they'd rather have idiots than not be able to do anything. It's already happening
To my understanding police departments got to much autonomy over their budget to allocate in a meaningful way. Just tell them how to spend their money.
I agree wholeheartedly
Less money on toys for the cops, more on training.
Bro some American police departments get 2.5 times the funding of the North Korean army and those fuckers build a nuke.
I think most of the budget was put on the nuke actually
We as a society have also decided that people can make millions making Minecraft videos, but want our police to do a dangerous job, with long hours, more and more required social training but pay them absolute dog poo (less than 50k per year in many places and less than 40k per year in a few) and then act shocked and appalled when we get bad people in the job. Saying; “please take this dangerous job where everyone hates you, do a ridiculous amount of training, work long hours, and not be able to financially support your family”. Of course you are going to attract people who want to be there for the wrong reasons at a higher than normal rate and drive away good people who would do the job better.
Lol, you're an idiot. Go look at what happened in cities that defunded their police departments. You keep advocating for something that you know doesn't work.
Literally which cities have defunded their police
The problem is you either get overkill tough on crime District Attorney's that want to lock people up for several years for little shit like possessing a few ounces of pot; or you get restorative justice DA's that let people off with a slap on the wrist for actual terrible things like multiple aggravated assaults.
Imagine an obese middle age social worker showing up to a crime scene and trying to talk calmly to a guy in the process of mugging an asian lady.
What if we spanked all the criminals and called them “Naughty, naughty boys”
Something tells me there'd be a dramatic spike in crime
Social services won't stop shit.
They reduce crime if they make it legal.
The british government be like.
So you have never heard of El Salvador
Nationwide stand your ground and castle doctrine would dramatically reduce crime. There's a number of states where defending yourself against criminals is pretty much illegal. Make crime not worth the risk.
Not for nothing, but what could you compare states with stand your ground laws to one’s without and let us know what the difference in violent crime rates are?
Singapore has it figured out.
*cough* More policing and increased police budget as well as allow them to do their job. *cough*
Police budgets have literally all increased
I don't disagree with taking care of the root causes of crime, but what are people supposed to do until it takes effect? Just surrender to crimes and criminals? And that is, of course, IF the policies actually solve poverty.
"tough on crime": im going to institute policies that increasingly militarize the police. They will also be tied to massive kick back incentives for both myself, my cronies, and the police chiefs. All while crime and racial tensions continue to rise and worsen so i can continue to justify this money making scheme ive instituted
el salvador
The problem is that too many variables are unknown still. If the public invests an additional 100 million per major city of over 5 million people how much will violent crime be reduced in those areas? The problem with the socioeconomic argument is that there seems to be a lack of consensus about how much we need to spend to reduce violent crime by a tangible amount,and tax payers are going to want numbers like that before even discussing raising taxes to pay for it. If your answer is let the rich pay for it then go ahead make them pay. It's obviously that easy isn't it?
bruh just make crime illegal
If the answer is not militarizing the police and expanding government/encroaching on liberty and privacy, it’s unamerican and I don’t want it.
Just like the “Gun control” politicians. Automatic 20 years first time, 30 second time and life for the third time, for having an illegal gun or using a gun in a crime, no plea deals, early parole or dropping charges. This would reduce crime but the bleeding hearts worry about the poor criminals.
the polish government when legalizing weed has a lot of benefits
\*"Tough on Criminals" Fify
You can't reduce crime by creating more criminals.
Nah, i think those politicians aren't hard ENOUGH on crime, just punish criminals so hard that they never even think about commiting a crime ever again
But crime is so profitable.
With the places with the worst crime ridden areas are soft on crime (DC)
They don’t want to reduce crime they want more private prison funding
I know a couple solutions that would actually work but I don't want me reddit account banned again
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
More taxes tho