OSDev.org

If you're all going to get into government's job...

Government's 'job' is not to protect and defend its citizens from other citizens. This may be a possible consequence of government' true 'job', but it is not its purpose. The entire role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens from being infringed by any one party, be it foreign or domestic.

If it is that the government is to somehow 'protect and defend' its citizens, then one sets an ugly precedent that essentially means the citizens have no rights. It means the government is able to control anyone just to 'protect and defend' them.

So basically, although our government is open and free, it could use some polishing up.

Well, when someone says, government, how often do they mean state government? The point is, that it is not the job of the Federal Government to do the job of State Government, unless the task becomes a Federal Issue, like a riot might warrant Federal action at some point. Anyway, if you want to stop gangs from being gangs, then you will have to attack it head on. This starts with making your judicial system less liberal.

Hi,
I myself have lot of friends . A person's group behaviour is very much different from his individual behaviour . I am not a psychologist , but this is my observation . When a person is in a group he does things which he would not do otherwise .However ,there are lots of things to be gained by working in a 'team' . So killing / bashing/punishing everybody in the group is not a good option , chances are that they will come back with more vigour . This I guess is happening with terrorists . The idea is to separate the persons from the gang and talk to them in a more personal tone , it is very likely that something might prick his/her conscience and he might change . I have seen some of my friends change this way [:)] . Violent measures in any case is not a permanent fix . I can proudly say that India won its independence from the British predominantly by non - violent means { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_ind ... e_movement }, no country can really boast of that ....

Regards
Shrek

Right on and well said!

EDIT: quick idea. You might try doing an analysis of the area these gangs are in and the people belonging to them. Some things you might consider are:

01. Is this a poor area?
02. Are these poor kids?
03. How are the school systems there?
04. What about the area, is it considered unsafe to be?
05. How about at night?

You see, there is probably a reasonable explanation as to why these gangs are forming and it is probably all of the above. What to do then? Get lots of money and give it to your city to use to buy up the poor area, then knock it down, and buy it back for cheaper, rebuild better homes/business, and relocate the refugees to Manitoba.

Or, you can get use to it as all this is just apart of life. You learn to avoid those areas. That's how we deal with it as citizens.

Shrek wrote:Hi,
I myself have lot of friends . A person's group behaviour is very much different from his individual behaviour . I am not a psychologist , but this is my observation . When a person is in a group he does things which he would not do otherwise .However ,there are lots of things to be gained by working in a 'team' . So killing / bashing/punishing everybody in the group is not a good option , chances are that they will come back with more vigour . This I guess is happening with terrorists . The idea is to separate the persons from the gang and talk to them in a more personal tone , it is very likely that something might prick his/her conscience and he might change . I have seen some of my friends change this way [:)] . Violent measures in any case is not a permanent fix . I can proudly say that India won its independence from the British predominantly by non - violent means { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_ind ... e_movement }, no country can really boast of that ....

Regards
Shrek

I wouldn't quite say completely nonviolent means - India did after all agree to fight for the UK in the world war on condition it was granted freedom

I think he was referring more to the Mahatma Gandhi movement which was based on non-violence. At least that's how I took it.

purage wrote:This starts with making your judicial system less liberal.

...and doesn't end in a solution. The conditions making those gangs form in the first place are still there, so there will still be gangs forming. What you end up with is a war gangs vs. police. Sure, you might "win" that one if you tighten your judical system to something along the lines of Germany 1933-1945, but you will still have gangs forming in one way or another.

Same thing e.g. in Afghanistan. You can fight the Taliban for decades and burn the poppy fields all you like. As long as poppy is a farmer's best bet of feeding his family, and the opium money goes right back funding the Taliban, you won't ever break the cycle. Unless, of course, you install enough manpower to check every single field in a country twice the size of Germany (while being shot at by the Taliban).

Fighting something with harsh retaliation might suppress or lessen the symptoms. It's also an easy thing to come up with, and caters for the vengeful mind. But if you want a solution, you have to address the causes. That is difficult, painful, and expensive, but the only way towards a long-term solution.

Not sure if I am reading you right. You seem to rebuke violence and then encourage it? The problem cannot be stopped it must be prevented. You do that by creating tougher laws and enforcing them. You start by rebuilding those poor areas and improving the schools. It is quite clear why some areas are better off than another. Take for example, Connecticut, USA. We think that because they have such a high percentage of college graduates that they make more money and live better lives. So, that is why the US spends nearly most of their state budget on the education system. Therefore, if it is found to be true that those areas are poverty stricken and the school systems are failing, then perhaps it would be a good idea to try and improve them. That with a tougher judicial system would at least prevent the spreading of criminal activity at least in that specific area.

In terms of Afghanistan, I agree. I say, pack up and come home. Let them rot from within. As long as they leave "our friends" and us alone then who cares what they do to each other. You don't see anyone trying to police Korea or China, so I think it is a bit hypocritical if you ask me. A huge waste of time all together. It just goes to show that the UN forces are there for more reasons than most of us will ever know.

purage wrote:Not sure if I am reading you right. You seem to rebuke violence and then encourage it? The problem cannot be stopped it must be prevented. You do that by creating tougher laws and enforcing them.

I said that tougher laws don't change anything. They don't solve the problem. If you're lucky, it will suppress the gang violence (think "pressure cooker"). If you are out of luck, the situation will escalate. Enforcing the existing laws should be sufficient to deal with the immediate concerns, as virtually everything those gangs could do is already punishable by prision terms.

I am strongly and vocally opposing the notion of changing laws after the fact. Like, tossing the Presumption of Innocence and the 8th Amendment out of the window and torturing suspected terrorists because it has now become convenient to do so.

This isn't only the USA, mind you. I could go on about the royal BS the German Minister of the Interior has put into law in the past few years, but he's been skillful enough that it doesn't really make for the big bold headlines of blame, so it would probably just bore you while its implications are about as frightening.

That with a tougher judicial system would at least prevent the spreading of criminal activity at least in that specific area.

The German city with the highest rate of drug-related crimes was Frankfurt, so police decided to come down hard on the drug scene there. Effect? The dealers and junkies spread to the surrounding suburbs and towns. Problem A still exists, but now there's problem B that the towns don't have the police manpower to handle problem A that's been dropped in their laps.

Life ain't simple.

I say, pack up and come home. Let them rot from within. As long as they leave "our friends" and us alone then who cares what they do to each other.

Who's "them"? The Taliban out to destroy everything that's not of true belief? The farmer who's trying to make a living for him and his family? The people in the city who'd love to build a better future for their kids, just like you and me?

"Globalization" doesn't just mean cheap electronics from abroad. It also means that we cannot simply put a lid on other countries' problems. I know it's a popular thing to do, especially when you're living on a continent of your own with just two neighbours. But the Taliban won't leave you alone, and the opium dealers won't either because you've got the money.

And sending troops isn't the only, or even the best, solution either - just the simplest to come up with.

But I admit I've been thinking about putting a wall around Israel and neighbours and have a look who's left in 50 years or so, myself.

I just meant that the laws could be increased to make certain crimes more serious. Like Texas for example. I am less likely to want to commit a crime there than in Boston. If I were caught with an ounce of marijuana in Texas, I might see prison time, but in Boston I might only get a ticket. Notice states or towns were the gov is more liberal than conservative and you will see a difference.

I meant bring home the troops. I don't care about johnny opium farmer trying hard to make a living. Try harder, do something else, grow something else. I pity you not.

The Taliban is not the only violent organization to worry about. Just because the mafia rules Italy, should we go over there and stamp them out? What about x-KGB selling secrets. Those secrets could potentially be more harmful than some opium farmer in Afghanistan growing and selling his drugs to support the Taliban. My point is that the "war on terror" is pointless and we could be doing more good somewhere else, preferably here in the states, so end the so called, "war" and come home troops.

In regards to the OP, I suggest writing your local reps and going from there.

purage wrote:I just meant that the laws could be increased to make certain crimes more serious. Like Texas for example. I am less likely to want to commit a crime there than in Boston. If I were caught with an ounce of marijuana in Texas, I might see prison time, but in Boston I might only get a ticket. Notice states or towns were the gov is more liberal than conservative and you will see a difference.

I meant bring home the troops. I don't care about johnny opium farmer trying hard to make a living. Try harder, do something else, grow something else. I pity you not.

If 2+2=4, then it will never equal 3. What you're saying is that if we continue to do 2+2 we will eventually get 3. We will never get 3, and conservative laws have not worked.

Sticking to some age old prohibition (Which, IMO, is unconstitutional.) is just stupid, and blindly enforcing it upon third world countries is foolish. What does it matter if a group of teenagers in Texas get high, or if Johnny grows some pretty flowers? The only reason drug dealers have guns is because the men in black suits waiting outside their doors have even larger ones.

Really? I think the drug dealers have guns to prevent being robbed. Some bigger dealers, like dealers who deal cocaine in large quantities might carry bigger guns and more man power simply because they can and I still think even then the reason is more to do with protection rather than shooting at the DEA. I'm not saying they won't.

I don't understand what you are saying. 2+2=3? I don't see where I said something like that. However, conservative laws work where they work and in most cases they work better than a liberal law where life means nothing basically. That a person has the right to kill themselves, have abortions, etc. I think it is best to be right there in the middle, or on the fence as they say.

What do you expect Troy, it's Vancouver. The cops are too busy tasering "innocent" polish bank robbers.
(Yes, I used to live there too.)