Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Criminalization of Everyday Life

tomdispatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 347 posts

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#91

Post by JackFr »

afterburner wrote: post #78

I generally agree with the article, but I object to this section: "And the mood is spreading. Take the asset bubble collapse of 2008 and the rising cries of progressives for the criminal prosecution of Wall Street perpetrators, as if a fundamentally sound financial system had been abused by a small number of criminals who were running free after the debacle. Instead of pushing a debate about how to restructure our pr…

The idea that there is a small cabal of powerful people who brought the economy to its knees while enriching themselves through their knowing and active malfeasance is a fairy tale.

To ethically prosecute people you have to competently and in good faith believe they have broken specific laws. And you need to know the actions, and how specifically they violated the law. An unfortunate outcome is not sufficient.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#92

Post by mindslight »

dmix wrote: post #61

I wish people would move beyond 1984 and quote more Foucault's Discipline & Punishment [1]. There is a much deeper-rooted problem in society than mass surveillance or militarization of police. It's the question of why we all let this happen without any resistance. We accept and welcome our controllers. Foucault wrote about the effects of prisoner mindset in society in the 1960-70s. Our subjugation and tolerance to au…

FWIW, you linked to a book format which has embedded technological controls that contribute to being at the mercy of authoritarianism.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#93

Post by ufmace »

CalRobert wrote: post #2

Surprised this didn't get any comments. It's a good reason to leave (or not move to) the US, or increasingly, the UK.

What's funny to me about the suggestion to move is that the very people who have the greatest ability to actually move to another country - upper-middle class people with college degrees - are the ones least affected by these issues.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#94

Post by puller »

raven105x wrote: post #76
anon4 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but in Ukraine, they're digging themselves out of a much deeper hole. If they manage to get accepted in the EU, a lot of them would emigrate west. USA citizens don't have that option. There isn't a "west" for someone from the USA to emigrate to. USA is the west. You shouldn't compare your corruption with Ukraine's or other Soviet Bloc countries'. Those people have a place to run to, as hard as getting there is.…

Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands. Hell, even Switzerland.

They do not want immigrants, they have problems enough with the ones they got recently

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#95

Post by mortyseinfeld »

This story reminded me of the Boston bombing and it's "lockdown" (read martial law). Didn't Boston have one of these APCs roaming the streets during its martial law. In that case it's really a show of force against the "civilian" population than to catch terrorists.

Why the hell does Ohio State need an MRAP. Are they going to actually tell us that the terrorists might roll in with tanks or APCs. Or maybe the terrorists will be running around with APCs in full combat? No.

Geez, is anybody even questioning these clowns about these acquisitions.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#96

Post by ctdonath »

redblacktree wrote: post #59
ctdonath wrote: post #33

Used to be military surplus stores would acquire military surplus and sell them to an amused and subsequently harmless citizenry. All that old equipment has to go somewhere ; now such civilian possession is prohibited (even used Humvees (basically just off-road cars) cannot, by law, be sold to the public), it ends up routed to the only group legally allowed to have it and wants it: police. In the meantime, stores tha…

> Question is: why is the government so afraid of its own citizens possessing such gear? Is that the right question, considering that the tactical gear market is allowed to exist? I'm apparently too lazy to do it, but it would probably be instructive to look at the history of that ban on military-to-citizen sales.

Short version:

In 1934, machineguns & "destructive devices" were hit with a $200 "transfer tax" and subject to tight paperwork regulations and severe penalties for violations. Given the products in question cost around $50, and the tax equaled some $3000 in today's US$, it was practically a ban. Inflation brought the tax down to affordable (cough) levels today.

In 1986, possession/manufacture of new machineguns was banned outright. Old ones could still be owned & transferred, but between the severely limited supply and accumulated $200 taxes, prices have increased about 25x over what they would cost unrestricted, making them desirable for investment and undesirable for mundane use.

When the US Army transitioned to "Humvees" replacing Jeeps, the contract included a clause prohibiting resale to civilians. Likewise other equipment cannot be resold, not so much by law but by contract.

As it is, the tactical gear market is "allowed" to exist mainly because there isn't much way to legally prohibit it. Most such gear is objectively indistinguishable from other common products (clothing, camping equipment, radios, hunting gear); the differences are significant in specialized use but nowhere near enough to be codified in law. As demonstrated during the now-expired 10-year "assault weapons ban", the marketplace will come up with all kinds of creative solutions to bridge any gaps caused by prohibition (10 round limit? get subcompact pistols or .50-caliber semi-auto rifles. Weight limits? superlight plastic/carbon-fiber guns.)

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#97

Post by bilbo0s »

aestra wrote: post #75
bilbo0s wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok... that one is crazy. Obey the cop and get suspended... or obey the teacher and go to jail. Just leaving these kids in no-win situations. SOMEONE has to be willing to listen and hear the kids out. Either the cop has to hear them out, and then say "OK, well I'll just keep an eye on you until your teacher comes." Or the teacher has to hear them out, and then say "Well, OK, it was my fault for telling you guys to sta…

Did you see the interview with the coach? He showed up, identified himself, said these kids were in the right place and they were going to a basketball game all while speaking very respecfully and the cops said if he didn't leave the coach was going to jail too! Apparently being out in public is illegal. They were going to a basketball game not school so they probably wouldn't get suspended but they were expected to…

Oh... I didn't know that the coach had tried to speak with the cop.

Yeah... I guess that makes it a little worse for the cops.

My only point was that this is a problem that should have been settled between the teacher(s) and the cop(s). They should have communicated better. Now if the teacher TRIED to communicate and the cop ignored him... yeah... that's a problem too.

I mean, adults need to work together to solve problems where children are concerned... not get in pissing contests to see who's is bigger. This is an issue where, I would think, it's obvious that the schools and the police should be communicating about what's going to happen with respect to transportation.

But you can't set up transportation. Communicate the arrangements to parents and students. Then show up and arrest all of the students for following your instructions. That's just a poorly run school district AND police department really. Actually... probably more a poorly run city.

And to arrest the kids because of the bumbling ineptitude of all of the adults involved in the incident is unforgivable. People should be fired for that. Anyone who plays CYA by trying to pin his ineptitude on children should be out of a job.

Incidentally... you do get suspended for some number of games for missing practice or a game. At least, those were the rules in my day. And that's how most teams are run at the school I work with. Basketball, Volleyball, Football or whatever.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#98

Post by walid »

csallen wrote: post #43
avmich wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, bothersome is the one above - that a police department chief is not about to turn down a free tank. If your police has such a mentality, you ought to be worried already.

Human nature is hard to change. Systems are (relatively) easy to change. Rather than worry about people being irresponsible, lazy, greedy, immoral, incompetent, etc, we should focus on building systems that work well and protect all involved despite all of that.

You nailed it. What also changes is people in authoritarian posts. The system has to be resilient to the occasional wrong guy being chosen for a powerful post. Also it doesn't make sense to fight individuals since it gives a fake sense justice. If the system allows injustice then it is bound to happen and abundantly so.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#99

Post by nate_meurer »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #37

One of the underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution is the Bill Of Rights, one of which states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." People go bouncing off the wall around this issue as if it were one having solely to do with owning guns, but the real purpose is arranging the real power in the government. The p…

This is excellent Daniel. Your take on the 2nd amendment is sensible almost to the point of obviousness, yet it's one that I've not encountered before.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#100

Post by afterburner »

JackFr wrote: post #91
afterburner wrote: post #78

I generally agree with the article, but I object to this section: "And the mood is spreading. Take the asset bubble collapse of 2008 and the rising cries of progressives for the criminal prosecution of Wall Street perpetrators, as if a fundamentally sound financial system had been abused by a small number of criminals who were running free after the debacle. Instead of pushing a debate about how to restructure our pr…

The idea that there is a small cabal of powerful people who brought the economy to its knees while enriching themselves through their knowing and active malfeasance is a fairy tale. To ethically prosecute people you have to competently and in good faith believe they have broken specific laws. And you need to know the actions, and how specifically they violated the law. An unfortunate outcome is not sufficient.

I made no claim that there is a small cabal of powerful people controlling everything brought down the system.

There are, however, Goldman Sachs people that lied to their own customers in order to make money, for example. That is the kind of behaviour that can be persecuted, mostly along the conflict of interest or fraud lines. Those are specific laws.

Oh, by the way, heard of the Libor scandal? Not specifically related to the crash, but interesting reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal

Post reply on HN