> Defund advocates dismiss these arguments—not because they can refute them with evidence, but because they’re blinded by ideology.
I don't know how you are supposed to take a writer seriously when they write things like this.
> Even in the absence of a viable alternative, they demand that existing law enforcement structures be torn down.
And this actually just isn't true. The author has time to read academic papers on policing issues but he doesn't seem to have read any of the material that police abolitionists have written.
He also references Michael Shellenberger frequently, a man who has also written "Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All" and "Break Through: Why We Can't Leave Saving the Planet to Environmentalist". I think Shellenberger had to put aside his 'liberal' credentials a long time ago.
> Today, with few exceptions, there is no more involuntary treatment for serious mental disease or drug addiction. But nor is there a humane alternative. There is only jail or the streets.
Maybe this has something to do with public funding for mental health being slashed almost everywhere and also linked to drug laws. So people who are on the streets and self-medicating because they couldn't get treatment can't be placed in the few available options because of their drug intake.
The entire article is a gloss over the issues without any real look at it.
San Fran is indeed a messed up city. So is Oakland. But I really don't have time for white people complaining about a situation that never affects them. He is complaining about his nanny having to move. Not him. His nanny. How does that compare to the police killing your friends and relatives for no reason?