So what's plan B if defunding cops creates anarchy?

[Radiatia]

It will lead to temporary anarchy, which will lead to a power vacuum which will lead to someone authoritarian (no, I mean actually authoritarian not "slightly conservative") filling that power vacuum.

Basically if this comes to pass, in about eight years the people currently protesting will be looking back on Donald Trump and thinking "Man I miss having moderates like Trump in office" while an actual literal fascist ends up in the White House, swept to power on a promise of restoring order at any cost.

I've said elsewhere that the defund the police movement is monumentally, axiomatically stupid.

In saying that, the fact that so many essential services like education and law enforcement in the US are (as I understand it) funded by local government probably goes a long way toward explaining the deficits in both quality of police and quality of political discourse: Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

[Ostroeuropa]

Here's the problem with that proposal... since when was anyone any good at predicting anyone else's motives for what they do?

Here's the problem with your question, and basically your entire post:
1. Insofar as crimes go, it's not an issue of individual motives. It's an issue of underlying social and economic causes for crimes on a broader scale.
2. A big part of why people want to focus resources away from police is that the imbalance in resources leads to cops being used to respond to problems and emergencies that would be better addressed by other kinds of professionals. For example, using cops to respond to mentally ill people suffering a crisis. Police flat out are being overused to deal with problems they have no business dealing with.

I broadly agree regarding 1 except in cases where an opportunity is created for organized crime and hierarchical organizations of crime. When individuals do crime on an individual level it's because of social factors, but when criminal empires arise it's because of power vacuums and a lack of law enforcement to crack down on them, and they themselves become the new underlying social and economic cause of dysfunction. They can often become entrenched to the point that even when law enforcement regains its footing, they have infiltrated institutions and will be outside of the law until directly confronted and tackled by society.

2 Is 100% true.

I think the danger of "Anarchy" in this situation would be the rise of a criminal empire who seize the opportunity to create a hierarchical organization of violence, wealth extraction, etc, far more so than the sudden outburst of uncoordinated individuals doing crime.

The issue is whether Gangs seize the opportunity more so than whether isolated criminals do.

Defunding the police while also allowing black markets to operate is probably a bad idea, even if money is put into social services. Legalizing drugs, prostitution and so on at the same time as defunding the police is probably a safer bet. It's not merely a matter of resources that factor into the social/economic factor, it's legality of product.

We can't dump money into education and suddenly make drugs not profitable as a venture, and so long as they are profitable and illegal, criminal gangs are going to arise. With a funded police service their influence can be contained, but without those funded police services, the presence of black markets leads to anarcho-capitalistic nightmare scenarios where you've essentially got corporate soldiers on behalf of a money making enterprise, since it operates outside of the law and the police do not have the resources to bring it down.

Turning urban communities into failed states like Mexico with regards to drug cartels is like, not good.

[The Emerald Legion]

People are arguing whether defunding the police is a good idea and I'm sitting here, like: How about we reform the entire structure of police training, equipment and social programs altogether?

This is an institutional problem, not a budgetary one. The entire police structure right now is a leftover legacy of the 80s' War on Drugs. It's time we bring the police into the 21st century.

But of course, that will cost more, not less.

Institutions are directly impacted by their funding. Do you not think that these structures feeling all powerful and unaccountable is related to their vast amount of funding?

As it stands the police use that cash to buy military vehicles and spare assault rifles.

Honestly, a lot of the militarization of police comes about because we make more military hardware than the military needs.

[Picairn]

Institutions are directly impacted by their funding. Do you not think that these structures feeling all powerful and unaccountable is related to their vast amount of funding?

As it stands the police use that cash to buy military vehicles and spare assault rifles.

Defunding does not address the issue of restructuring the antiquated police training system. It is merely transferring the budget from the police to social welfare.

Also I would argue police accountability starts with ending qualified immunity and mandating body cams, as well as allowing citizens to film cops without fear of retribution.

As for the cash used to buy military equipment, just end the 1033 program and various bills allowing military access for cops passed in the 80s. But do ensure they are properly equipped for a shooting or a bomb attack.

[Big Jim P]

Plan B? A helluva lot more people adopting plan A. Buying and using guns in self and property defense. It's already started in fact.

[Krasny-Volny]

So we're hearing a lot of talk about defunding police and putting that money into social services instead. The idea, presumably, is that if these "social services" could somehow address every other possible motive for committing crime in the first place, we wouldn't need as much policing.

Here's the problem with that proposal... since when was anyone any good at predicting anyone else's motives for what they do?

No, really. I recall 2016, when the notion that respondents who claimed they'd vote Clinton if she were the candidate were lying through their teeth were met with "why would they lie"? Doesn't matter. They did. People do what they do for reasons neither you nor I nor the so-called "experts" who got it wrong could ever hope to comperehend. The delusion that if you do not anticipate their motives, such motives cannot exist, feels like a false dichotomy fit to rival "God of the gaps."

So now proposals to defund the police invoke the delusion that they have every possible motive for crime figured out; and they want us to, based on this tenuous reasoning, weaken the one institution known to hold crime back.

My question to them is; what if you're wrong? What is your plan B, if people have reasons for committing crimes that you fail to anticipate, predict, or comprehend, and these reasons are all unleashed? Is a return to policing as it was before possible, or would the change, or at least some of the effects thereof, be permanent? Is there a third option you could jump to from there, that might be relatively safer? If so, what is it?

My alternative? If we think we know why crime happens, then rather than defunding the police, why not address those supposed motives first, and then weaken police presence very slowly and gradually so if it works out badly we can reverse the trend before it's too late?

OK protestors, defund and abolish the police, but now you’re on your own. We will return to the days of the Wild West and frontier justice. I’d recommend investing in a gun. Actually, several.

Most of these people wouldn’t last five minutes in a world without organized law enforcement.

[Gormwood]

It's lazier and sexier to assume "defund police" means "take away all their money period" instead of "take away excess funding they spend on military gear and tactics".

[North German Realm]

It's lazier and sexier to assume "defund police" means "take away all their money period" instead of "take away excess funding they spend on military gear and tactics".

I mean, taking away all their money should be the end-goal imo.

[Picairn]

I mean, taking away all their money should be the end-goal imo.

No, anarchy has always failed.

[Kowani]

I mean, taking away all their money should be the end-goal imo.

No, anarchy has always failed.

…Do you think anarchy just means “no police lol”?

[North German Realm]

I mean, taking away all their money should be the end-goal imo.

No, anarchy has always failed.

While that is categorically false, what part of "take away the police's funds" did you take for anarchy?

[Picairn]

…Do you think anarchy just means “no police lol”?

Police is the enforcer of laws. Every nation-state needs them to establish order and the rule of law.

[Picairn]

While that is categorically false, what part of "take away the police's funds" did you take for anarchy?

Give me an example of a successful anarchic state. Taking away the police's funds would render them inoperative. Every government agency and department need money to work, that's common sense.

[Purpelia]

No, anarchy has always failed.

…Do you think anarchy just means “no police lol”?

No but a state with no law enforcement is a state with no laws and that is indeed anarchy.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It's lazier and sexier to assume "defund police" means "take away all their money period" instead of "take away excess funding they spend on military gear and tactics".

I'm dubious that cutting their budgets will necessarily cause them to stop buying (or maintaining) the military gear. Unless they're commanded to do so, they might instead cut police numbers.

In fact cutting funding is not even necessary, if police could be commanded to spend more on training and less on gear.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

smile smile smile? I mean this is what I've wanted for ages.

[Neuer Deutsches Reich]

Don’t defund it in the first place

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Don’t defund it in the first place

If state governments undertook to reform all police in their state, they could do it with or without defunding. Doing it without would arguably be better, as it won't further diminish the goodwill of police.

Some state governments might not make any effort to reform police in their state. In that case I think defunding could be used as a lever by federal government, to get state governments off their arses.

[VVerkia]

So we're hearing a lot of talk about defunding police and putting that money into social services instead. The idea, presumably, is that if these "social services" could somehow address every other possible motive for committing crime in the first place, we wouldn't need as much policing.

Here's the problem with that proposal... since when was anyone any good at predicting anyone else's motives for what they do?

No, really. I recall 2016, when the notion that respondents who claimed they'd vote Clinton if she were the candidate were lying through their teeth were met with "why would they lie"? Doesn't matter. They did. People do what they do for reasons neither you nor I nor the so-called "experts" who got it wrong could ever hope to comperehend. The delusion that if you do not anticipate their motives, such motives cannot exist, feels like a false dichotomy fit to rival "God of the gaps."

So now proposals to defund the police invoke the delusion that they have every possible motive for crime figured out; and they want us to, based on this tenuous reasoning, weaken the one institution known to hold crime back.

My question to them is; what if you're wrong? What is your plan B, if people have reasons for committing crimes that you fail to anticipate, predict, or comprehend, and these reasons are all unleashed? Is a return to policing as it was before possible, or would the change, or at least some of the effects thereof, be permanent? Is there a third option you could jump to from there, that might be relatively safer? If so, what is it?

My alternative? If we think we know why crime happens, then rather than defunding the police, why not address those supposed motives first, and then weaken police presence very slowly and gradually so if it works out badly we can reverse the trend before it's too late?

Either funding or defunding policy isn't answer to problems. Crimes, evil et bad things can be do and it doesn't matter if someone have or not have some kind of power. Begger can do it, policeman can do it, normal citizen can do it, villain can do it, etc. etc. Either anarchy or government can't prevent bad things happend. It can create different kind of bad things. Anarchy can give false freedom, and government can give false security.

"God of gap" isn't real god. Someone who can use gaps only can have more powers then simple, ordinary human.

Some time ago i do many minor bad things and some really bad - for few years i steal clothes from containers. No one stopped me, no one prevent me from doing this. It was part of my struggling with repressed dysphoria. No human have me "on leash" to do it, but i feel very bad with it. I finally stopped with it. Not forced by anyone. I clear my struggle with dysphoria, tell about my problems, and started living as myself in term of all gender stuff. Someone can argue, that my "feeling bad" was my leash on myself. It can be described as "villain talking", trying to "prove" that, when someone have conscience about own "do", then it is unnecessary leash and you simply need "fun", goes with own malicious desires. From my pov that kind of desires can be real leash, not conscience. I don't have answers for all peoples. I don't know other peoples struggling. I just know, that anyone can make mistakes in differentiating what is wrong and what not.

Finally, i feel somehow good, that i do it (end bad things in past) on my own, with my conscience, not forced, not teached, not policing etc. by anyone. I was learning from my wrongdoings. Even if i feel good about that i do it on my own, i feel very bad for everything wrong that i do to that point. I miss, that lgbt topic wasn't real part of education back in school years, so i would choose way, that i know, that could exist, and is somehow fine with me, somehow describe my story etc. It could prevent me from many bad things that i do.

[Free Federal States]

Totally defunding the police is a bad idea. It’s impossible to enforce the law without them, and everything is already wild enough as is (with all the terrorism and stuff). For that same reason, the cops probably should hold onto at least some of the military equipment (look up North Hollywood Shootout and you’ll see why the cops began serious rearmament programs). Herein lies the problem: in an era that is highly volatile, police officers need to have the resources to keep us safe, but can’t be given too much either.

Cops should be trained in deescalation and focus anew on community outreach, but we can’t remove too much cash from their budget or else they won’t be able to maintain order.

[Ifreann]

What's plan B if funding the police doesn't stop crime?

[Purpelia]

What's plan B if funding the police doesn't stop crime?

NOTHING is ever going to stop all crime. NOTHING. Well, nothing short of killing all people at birth that is.
But you can reduce crime. And having a functional police force does in fact reduce crime considerably.

[Ifreann]

What's plan B if funding the police doesn't stop crime?

NOTHING is ever going to stop all crime. NOTHING. Well, nothing short of killing all people at birth that is.
But you can reduce crime. And having a functional police force does in fact reduce crime considerably.

What's plan B if funding the police doesn't reduce crime the maximum possible amount it can be reduced?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

And having a functional police force does in fact reduce crime considerably.

Adding the word "functional" in there makes the argument circular.
Having a functional force of musical muppets also reduces crime considerably, if that's their function.

[Picairn]

What's plan B if funding the police doesn't stop crime?

What's plan B if defunding cops create anarchy?