Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

The reasons children join gangs are:
1. Security
2. Affiliation
3. Boredom

My goal here isn't to forcibly break up gangs. My goal is to drain their recruitment in the long term by removing the incentive to join gangs.

1. People will not join gangs for security if it is provided by the state.
2. People will not join gangs for affiliation if it is provided by the state.
3. People will not join gangs for engagement if it is provided by the state.

Security - provided by massive police presence
Affiliation - provided by school uniforms, conscription, and social enfranchisement
Engagement - provided by public entertainment facilities and open streets made possible by physical and property security

Cops rarely resort to their guns, and murder is a very hard crime to get away with when there's the will to prosecute it, especially with cameras everywhere and reinforcements and police armories only a few blocks away. There's no evidence that guns in the hands of police are causally effective in preventing crime, and there's much evidence that they aren't.

Police in many countries that work in far more difficult environments and DON'T carry guns do a much better job than our own of preserving order - China comes to mind - because what prevents violence against police isn't the availability of lethal force, it's the machinery of the state. This is also why cops are punks, because, like gangs, organization and sheer numbers makes one who is timid alone suddenly brash.



Do better detective work. It's called gumshoeing for a reason.

Build a case. Stalk people. Take notes and photographs. Those are the basics, they're self-evident, and cops don't care to do it because these communities are by their very nature the process of neglect.

Good detective work is the foundation of due process.



Ok. What sort of support?



You said that fighting crime directly won't work because it will start a shooting war, and you said crime enforcement won't work because it's "not worth it" and people who are guilty will just get off because we don't have summary justice.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

All money spent on public sector hiring goes directly back into the economy via consumer spending. Social investment pays dividends far in excess of inflation or taxation, and marginal taxation will cover the cost.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Government labor doesn't cost anything...Keynesian idiocy at its finest.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

this thread makes me laugh.

mainly because you won't have the chance to "fix" much, and the masses won't look for anything like what you offer.

1929-1945



Stranger things have happened.

If you were such a dreamer or free thinker as you like to style yourself, you'd realize that without being told.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

Never heard this one, but I like it!!

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

itt: The US Government transforms itself into a police state to tackle the problems of some uppity negroes.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

How is it a police state? Rule of law and representative government are preserved.

Well, at least the former.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

1. Yes, with a line item veto on stripping police of sidearms. I'd be okay with limiting ability to carry sidearms to certain officers only who meet pre-defined criteria.

Banning assault weapon usage by police is good, provided we have a provision that allows for rapid response deployment with assault weapons in cases of terror attacks, rioting, insurrection, etc like you mentioned.

2. I agree with the overall premise of your idea, which is to create an agency to police the police, so to speak.

I am unclear on the necessity of restricting their diet, please elaborate further.

Would these by lifetime appointments, or would they have term limits?

Need more specifics.

3. Absolutely not to Universal Daycare. I'll raise my own children, and do a damn fine job of it. Thank you.

Universal Healthcare, I'd say yes with option to pay more money to private providers that can possibly provide superior service. The wealthy should not be penalized for being wealthy. Wealth does not equal evil, contrary to what many people believe.

If you can afford to pay more for better quality care, go for it.

If not, at least something's better than nothing, and at least you are guaranteed coverage.

4. I agree with your assessment of the problems schools face, I strongly disagree with your notion that we create robot-like citizen factories in place of schools.

Banning private education is a firm no. If people wanna teach their kids that God did it, God did it, God did it..whatever..

There are plenty of private education programs and institutions of study that are proven effective.

I am staunchly against the banning of private education including homeschooling, which is my preferred method of schooling my children. I won't trust our public school system to fuck up their education, thus I am taking matters into my own hands.

Too many other things to bother getting into...where to even begin.

5. Horrible idea. Our military is fine, the military industrial complex is where the problem lies. "Sheer number of bodies" provides me with a vision of soldiers being viewed as meatshields and pawns, which I take issue with.

Conscription is equal to involuntary servitude. If people do not want to serve, do not want to fight, and are not willing to die for their country, the quality of the military as a whole will decrease.

In combat scenarios at present, the mission comes first, always. Under your proposals the misson would come first for those who accept their role in the military, but others who are being made to serve against their will will always put personal survival over all.

I suppose your proposal to deal with such scenarios would be shoot them on sight for dereliction of duty or insubordination.


All in all, no.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

I may be a dreamer and free thinker, but I also have forethought and foresight.

Basically this.

The two reasons I want to specifically de-emphasize both training and stocking of heavy weapons and assault weapons are:

1) to diminish the appeal of a career in public safety to paramilitary/gun freak types
2) to move our public security strategy away from reliance on firepower, because it isn't a viable long-term solution to our problems and only serves to create a false sense of security that exacerbates problems



Two goals:
1) Tightly control their social behavior and personal freedom to prevent them from being compromised
2) Prevent them from accepting free meals at expensive restaurants as quid pro quo



From appointment to retirement - no term limits but subject to impeachment.

I specifically do not want them to ever be able to hold any other kind of job ever again, for fear they might be hired as "consultants", or do favors with the expectation of future employment.

Same as Supreme Court Justices.




School is mandatory. Daycare is not, unless crime, neglect or divorce is involved.



That's a slippery slope.

50 years ago, CSU was chartered to provide education free of tuition. They still do. With about $1000 in fees per semester, dorms and books "optional".

Same with many other elements of American society, such as passport processing, criminal defense, and body armor for troops during the Iraq invasion.

"If you have the means" can very quickly become "if you're not a bum". This has been a major detriment to the American middle class.



I reject the notion that anyone is more entitled to primary care than anyone else, whatever their means. Cosmetic surgery or chiro or shrinks or personal fitness, yes - primary care, no.



Slippery slope. Also see: Veterans' Administration, Department of Indian Affairs.



The goal is not to turn students into robots, but to restrict their sense of affiliation.

I believe this ultimately serves to promote individuality, in the same way that religious movements like Quakerism or Reform Judaism promote religious freedom compared to Catholicism: nothing stands between man and God, or between man and the State.

I believe that preventing students from being corralled into cliques encourages them to develop themselves as thoughtful and moral individuals.

This is also why I believe in "highly aggressive" and "fundamental-based" education with "deliberately pitting students against each other". To foster individuality.

I believe that America has too little individuality today, not too much. The goal of conformity, paradoxically, is to break the herd mentality.

This also is the reason behind my style of dress in real life.



I believe that for society to succeed, truth must prevail. Moral relativism is a dead end.



I firmly believe that the only proper way to educate children is a highly fundamental-based education - and that all other forms of education are wrong.

"Fundamental-based" meaning:

Primary school
-Emphasis on Reading, 'Riting, and 'Rithmatic
-All educational materials are written; almost no use of multimedia
-Teaching writing via reading
-Teaching math via a "two-pronged" approach consisting of cut-and-dry manuals and Kumon-style quizzes on the one hand, and complex narrative-based problem solving on the other (Real Math textbooks). This is how I learned math and I firmly believe it is far superior to any and all alternatives.

Middle/high school (conjoined)
-Emphasis on literature, natural science, classical studies, algebra/trig, and foreign language
-All testing standardized and extremely frequent - no annual tests
-Absolutely no humanitarian/artistic education

My belief is that private schools, by their very nature, can't be "proven" effective, because they select their own students and set their own criteria. Furthermore, even if private schools are effective, the purpose of public education is to equalize opportunity for the next generation. Again, the "slippery slope" very easily turns "optional" into "if you're not a loser".

Even with all children receiving the same educational opportunities, good parents still have the potential to massively stack the odds in their childrens' favor. There can't be a law against having your child read to you, or spending the weekend teaching him advanced skills. I think the controversy about the "failure" of schools is really a blame game, and parents don't want schools to be empowered to do what must be done because it would highlight their own deficiencies as parents.

Put simply - I don't believe it's possible for public schools to fuck up the education of children, only for them to not do as much as they should to help. There's nothing a private school can do a dedicated parent can't do better, but not everyone is so fortunate.

This is also why degree inflation is running unchecked.




That's exactly the goal.

The government will be less likely to wage bloody wars without good cause if it's the electorate's sons and daughters who are getting killed, and not just what amounts to a mercenary army drawn from society's most desperate - or deluded.

If we are to go to war, we must be damn sure it's worthwhile. Death to the chickenhawks.



It's a civil duty, no different than taxation. "Love America or leave it."



First off, you assume that just because someone signs their enlistment papers, they automatically "want to be there", disregarding the many possible motivations for doing so - money, glory-seeking, social status, fair-weather peacetime soldiering, etc.

Second off, mercenary armies, or armies of professional warriors/soldiers, have historically proven more wary and less controllable, less altruistic, than conscripted armies. This has been true for thousands of years. It was true during the Punic Wars, it was true during the Hundred Years' War, it was true during the French and American Revolutionary Wars, and it was true during the World Wars, too.

When World War I began, a lot of countries (especially France and England) were reluctant to use conscripts for the reasons you described - fears about their survivability and reliability. But as it turned out, conscript armies were what fought the war. And then you have conscript armies like those of the Swiss or Israelis or Finns that have a reputation for kicking ass.

And, in the long run, it was because of the terrible experiences in WWII and Vietnam that made Europeans and Americans appreciate just how dangerous war really is. By contrast, we're not re-learning that lesson today in Iraq/Afghanistan.



Isn't that the status quo? Why should other people be punished for their unwillingness to fight our wars more than the electorate that sent them there?

But in practice, it really isn't an issue. People had the same concerns before the World Wars, and they didn't pan out.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I disagree with the school overhaul. I'd rather everyone experience middle-class, suburban high school. By the end of it (or so it was in my experience), if you're not a total idiot, you'll have stopped grouping people arbitrarily, you'll know more hard science than 90% of the previous generation, you'll at least know pre-calc, and you'll have been forced to read enough mediocre literature that at least you won't fuck up "your/you're" anymore.

I disagree with conscription because in its place I'd abolish every branch of the armed forces except the Navy (and roll the Air Force into the Navy), and people serving on ships/aircraft in any necessary capacity are professionals.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

except for the military stuff tuhl mentioned, i wholeheartedly agree.

and really, i only disagree with the military part becuse there will always. be a necessity of the footsolider

I didn't read Aestu's proposal... but did it mention genocide? Just wondering.

I think this would all be fixed by mass sterilization. Keep everyone who is smart, and prevent anyone who is an idiot from reproducing.

Note, this won't look at race...simply intelligence. Obama would still be able to reproduce, much to Eturnal's chagrin.