Statistics...what are the deeper issues?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

nowhere did I post that "black people commit more crimes". ...

...I did state that there is a "higher incidence of crimes committed by blacks as a % of the overall pop.

Yes, you think it's a fact that blacks have a higher propensity to commit crimes than white folks. I don't accept this as a fact...

....except by definition as I stated in my very first post.....and when I say, 'by definition', I mean in the "Golden Rule" sense of how we define crime in our society (those with the gold make the rules). Paraphrasing one long since dead dude....'the laws are applied equally to the rich and poor alike, the poor cannot sleep on park benches or beg for bread and neither can the rich.'

In the case of sleeping on park benches and begging for bread, the poor unquestionably commit more crimes from a positivist point of view. That is not a fact I would argue except to say that it is pedantic and useless trivia. (I'm more of a natural law guy than a legal positivist guy, as you're no doubt aware)

So when I see the question "why do black people commit so many crimes compared to white people?", I see the implicit acceptance of a legal positivist world view buried in the premise of the question....accordingly I'm challenging the 'fact' that black people commit more crimes by challenging this implicit premise.

Which is to say, what if we defined 'crime' not as something which group 'a' passes judgment upon group 'b', but intead as an act of aggression (force or the threat of force) by any person or groups of people?

I don't know what the stats would look like but I suspect we wouldn't see quite the disparity.

anyhoo, we have different world views, and if you can't do better than whip my ass with a bunch orthodox, establishment liberal bromides than just leave it be.

[ray_sir_6]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Yes, you think it's a fact that blacks have a higher propensity to commit crimes than white folks. I don't accept this as a fact...

....except by definition as I stated in my very first post.....and when I say, 'by definition', I mean in the "Golden Rule" sense of how we define crime in our society (those with the gold make the rules). Paraphrasing one long since dead dude....'the laws are applied equally to the rich and poor alike, the poor cannot sleep on park benches or beg for bread and neither can the rich.'

In the case of sleeping on park benches and begging for bread, the poor unquestionably commit more crimes from a positivist point of view. That is not a fact I would argue except to say that it is pedantic and useless trivia. (I'm more of a natural law guy than a legal positivist guy, as you're no doubt aware)

So when I see the question "why do black people commit so many crimes compared to white people?", I see the implicit acceptance of a legal positivist world view buried in the premise of the question....accordingly I'm challenging the 'fact' that black people commit more crimes by challenging this implicit premise.

Which is to say, what if we defined 'crime' not as something which group 'a' passes judgment upon group 'b', but intead as an act of aggression (force or the threat of force) by any person or groups of people?

I don't know what the stats would look like but I suspect we wouldn't see quite the disparity.

anyhoo, we have different world views, and if you can't do better than whip my ass with a bunch orthodox, establishment liberal bromides than just leave it be.

So you want to throw out all the "biased" laws that were made by "rich white people" that seem to "target" the "poor black people"? There are more black people in jail by both raw numbers and by population % than any other race. There are also far more white serial killers per % of population than of the black population. So if the numbers were skewed, why wouldn't there be more black serial killers, or do our racist police forces catch them before they amass a quantity to justify being called "serial killers"?

Maybe we need to stop giving black people an excuse by constantly crying over something that happened hundreds of years ago, IE slavery.
History Note: the first "slaves" were white, owned by a black man in Virginia.

Oh yeah, my wife is half black. :P

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Yes, you think it's a fact that blacks have a higher propensity to commit crimes than white folks. I don't accept this as a fact...

hmm, well, whites commit more crimes than any other ethnic group, and it isn't a 1:1 ratio on crimes per person, so no your statement about "higher propensity" isn't really a fact at all.

....except by definition as I stated in my very first post.....and when I say, 'by definition', I mean in the "Golden Rule" sense of how we define crime in our society (those with the gold make the rules). Paraphrasing one long since dead dude....'the laws are applied equally to the rich and poor alike, the poor cannot sleep on park benches or beg for bread and neither can the rich.'

In the case of sleeping on park benches and begging for bread, the poor unquestionably commit more crimes from a positivist point of view. That is not a fact I would argue except to say that it is pedantic and useless trivia. (I'm more of a natural law guy than a legal positivist guy, as you're no doubt aware)

So when I see the question "why do black people commit so many crimes compared to white people?", I see the implicit acceptance of a legal positivist world view buried in the premise of the question....accordingly I'm challenging the 'fact' that black people commit more crimes by challenging this implicit premise.

Which is to say, what if we defined 'crime' not as something which group 'a' passes judgment upon group 'b', but intead as an act of aggression (force or the threat of force) by any person or groups of people?

I don't know what the stats would look like but I suspect we wouldn't see quite the disparity.

anyhoo, we have different world views, and if you can't do better than whip my ass with a bunch orthodox, establishment liberal bromides than just leave it be.

perhaps your philosophical posturing about "natural law" can create an argument that violent crime such as murder, assault, rape and robbery are merely "passing judgement", but in my view they're just plain crimes, and very easy to see for what they are.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Yes, you think it's a fact that blacks have a higher propensity to commit crimes than white folks. I don't accept this as a fact...

....except by definition as I stated in my very first post.....and when I say, 'by definition', I mean in the "Golden Rule" sense of how we define crime in our society (those with the gold make the rules). Paraphrasing one long since dead dude....'the laws are applied equally to the rich and poor alike, the poor cannot sleep on park benches or beg for bread and neither can the rich.'

In the case of sleeping on park benches and begging for bread, the poor unquestionably commit more crimes from a positivist point of view. That is not a fact I would argue except to say that it is pedantic and useless trivia. (I'm more of a natural law guy than a legal positivist guy, as you're no doubt aware)

So when I see the question "why do black people commit so many crimes compared to white people?", I see the implicit acceptance of a legal positivist world view buried in the premise of the question....accordingly I'm challenging the 'fact' that black people commit more crimes by challenging this implicit premise.

Which is to say, what if we defined 'crime' not as something which group 'a' passes judgment upon group 'b', but intead as an act of aggression (force or the threat of force) by any person or groups of people?

I don't know what the stats would look like but I suspect we wouldn't see quite the disparity.

anyhoo, we have different world views, and if you can't do better than whip my ass with a bunch orthodox, establishment liberal bromides than just leave it be.

You do quite a nice job of arguing your anarchist rhetoric, and sometimes it even does give one pause for thought. Trouble is, though, we've been getting by--and getting by quite well, even in Hobbes' and Locke's time--with whatever "gold standard" you would wish to rail against.

At some point, Alexa, you gotta have standards. I know, I know...it is intellectually more stimulating not to...to think that good and bad are just ephemeral constructs. But when it gets to governance--which I KNOW you hate--at some point the rubber meets the road.

Admittedly, it's not something that everyone has the stomach for.

[alexamenos]

It's blatantly obvious that not one of you understand the contrast and comparison between the positivist view of law and a natural rights view of law, so I'll try to dumb things down a little more....make it a lot more.

The question in the first post was (paraphrased) 'Why are so many people on the Dallas Sheriff's most wanted list black?'

Let's start by taking a look at the top 5 on the Dallas Sheriff's office website and their heinous crimes against humanity --

5. Charles Eugene Johnson, Possession of drug paraphanalia and fare evasion
4. Donald Ray Templeton, Unregistered vehicle and a variety of motor vehicle transgressions
3. Patrick Darnell Owens, Fare evasion and theft of service under $20
2. Kevin L. Smith, Fare evasion and Clerks II;

and the number one spot on Dallas' Most Wanted....

....brace yourself for the horror that follows....

1. Joel Israel Green, Fare evasion.

Basically we're talking about a bunch of guys jumping onto and off of Dart without paying their fare, possibly while carrying a roach clip.

So let's re-phrase the earlier question.....'if the law applies equally to rich Highland Park kids and Oak Cliff no-accounts, why aren't more rich highland park kids on the Dallas Sheriff's most wanted list for not paying their DART fares?

I humbly suggest here that the reason fewer highland park kids skip DART fares is because the DART doesn't go from Preston to Turtle Creek among other reasons....

What if we asked instead....'who is more likely to date rape a Tri-Delt during a drunken toga party following a lacross match, a rich white kid from Highland Park or 38 year old unemployed black dude from Oak Cliff?'

I think the answer here is obvious, and the more general point is that it's pretty easy to pick and choose the crimes in question in such a way as to disproportionately include one segment of society while excluding others. IOW, 'What are the deeper issues?' The deeper issue ain't that deep, it's just definitional.

(and I haven't even brought up the War on Drugs, which is far more likely to put a black guy selling a little weed into a prison than a white guy selling 12 year old single malt.)

Chum, as is his habit, inverts reality --

At some point, Alexa, you gotta have standards. I know, I know...it is intellectually more stimulating not to...to think that good and bad are just ephemeral constructs. But when it gets to governance--which I KNOW you hate--at some point the rubber meets the road.

Chum is well aware that I am of the opinion that good and bad are not ephemeral constructs, but instead matters which apply to governments and government officials in the exact same manner as private institution and persons.

That is, I think it's wrong to point a gun at someone's head and take their shit and moreover I think this is true whether one is a no-account from Oak Cliff robbing a liquor store or an IRS agent acting at the behest of an angry mob of registered voters.

Hence, Chum mistakes my moral consistency for anarchy, as if opposition to institutionalized looting is support of chaos.

and for Mavdog and that other guy -- you guys need to work on your reading comprehension and thinking skills....seriously. I'm not saying rape, murder and (for that matter) skipping DART fares aren't crimes. You've wrongly inferred this from what I've written -- I'm saying other things are crimes but these crimes are under-counted in the quoted crimes statistics.

[ray_sir_6]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

It's blatantly obvious that not one of you understand the contrast and comparison between the positivist view of law and a natural rights view of law, so I'll try to dumb things down a little more....make it a lot more.

The question in the first post was (paraphrased) 'Why are so many people on the Dallas Sheriff's most wanted list black?'

Let's start by taking a look at the top 5 on the Dallas Sheriff's office website and their heinous crimes against humanity --

5. Charles Eugene Johnson, Possession of drug paraphanalia and fare evasion
4. Donald Ray Templeton, Unregistered vehicle and a variety of motor vehicle transgressions
3. Patrick Darnell Owens, Fare evasion and theft of service under $20
2. Kevin L. Smith, Fare evasion and Clerks II;

and the number one spot on Dallas' Most Wanted....

....brace yourself for the horror that follows....

1. Joel Israel Green, Fare evasion.

Basically we're talking about a bunch of guys jumping onto and off of Dart without paying their fare, possibly while carrying a roach clip.

So let's re-phrase the earlier question.....'if the law applies equally to rich Highland Park kids and Oak Cliff no-accounts, why aren't more rich highland park kids on the Dallas Sheriff's most wanted list for not paying their DART fares?

I humbly suggest here that the reason fewer highland park kids skip DART fares is because the DART doesn't go from Preston to Turtle Creek among other reasons....

What if we asked instead....'who is more likely to date rape a Tri-Delt during a drunken toga party following a lacross match, a rich white kid from Highland Park or 38 year old unemployed black dude from Oak Cliff?'

I think the answer here is obvious, and the more general point is that it's pretty easy to pick and choose the crimes in question in such a way as to disproportionately include one segment of society while excluding others. IOW, 'What are the deeper issues?' The deeper issue ain't that deep, it's just definitional.

(and I haven't even brought up the War on Drugs, which is far more likely to put a black guy selling a little weed into a prison than a white guy selling 12 year old single malt.)

Chum, as is his habit, inverts reality --



Chum is well aware that I am of the opinion that good and bad are not ephemeral constructs, but instead matters which apply to governments and government officials in the exact same manner as private institution and persons.

That is, I think it's wrong to point a gun at someone's head and take their shit and moreover I think this is true whether one is a no-account from Oak Cliff robbing a liquor store or an IRS agent acting at the behest of an angry mob of registered voters.

Hence, Chum mistakes my moral consistency for anarchy, as if opposition to institutionalized looting is support of chaos.

and for Mavdog and that other guy -- you guys need to work on your reading comprehension and thinking skills....seriously. I'm not saying rape, murder and (for that matter) skipping DART fares aren't crimes. You've wrongly inferred this from what I've written -- I'm saying other things are crimes but these crimes are under-counted in the quoted crimes statistics.

http://www.dallassheriffsoffice.com/...Ten/top10.html

I don't see those petty crimeson the Dallas Sheriffs' Most Wanted list.

Maybe Arlington has something?

http://www.arlingtonpd.org/MostWanted/APDMostWanted.pdf

Or maybe the Dallas PD?

http://www.dallaspolice.net/index.cf...893&openid=193

They all seem to be serious crimes, so why are you listing examples of minor crimes?

The majority of crime stats use "violent crimes" as the main critieria. They aren't considering speeding violations, or parking tickets. So maybe blacks don't break more laws than whites, but they do when it comes to serious/violent crimes.

You consider tax collection a crime? Or "institutionalized looting" as you call it. You are using their services, so you have to pay. Yeah, you are forced to use it in alot of cases, but it is still something our society requires to keep it from breaking into utter chaos. You like having police available incase you need them? Or maybe the fire department? What about the military? Maybe you don't directly rely on them, but the chances you will need them in the future are enough to make it a good idea to pay for them.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by ray_sir_6

[url]You consider tax collection a crime? Or "institutionalized looting" as you call it.

Generally speaking, yes. I think there exceptions and shades of gray, but as a rule I think holding a gun to someone and taking their shit is a crime.

(estate taxes is an exception I'm ok with -- taking the wealth of a dead guy is less bad certainly than taking the income from a living guy.....property taxes don't trouble me too much, that land was there before the property right.....corporate income taxes are bearable, what with corporations being a creation of the state in the first place)

You are using their services, so you have to pay. Yeah, you are forced to use it in alot of cases, but it is still something our society requires to keep it from breaking into utter chaos. You like having police available incase you need them? Or maybe the fire department? What about the military? Maybe you don't directly rely on them, but the chances you will need them in the future are enough to make it a good idea to pay for them.

I don't mean to be rude, but this is very old shit for me....I mean, once-upon-a-time I would have implicitly agreed with you but I've been persuaded otherwise. I've encountered the argument you make in one form or fashion about a gillion times since and I didn't find it terribly persuasive the previous gillion times and I'm not likely to find it persuasive today.

In a nutshell, I think we're basically modern Serfs working for a corporate/government alliance of Lords. The argument you make is basically the same as the argument made for serfdom ('sure the serfs are working their butts off for the man, but they need the man for protection...').

Maybe there's something to your argument that serfdom is good for the serfs, but my position is more like, 'so what if it is?' It's not like we really have a choice in the matter one way or the other.