This has always been a question of mine - how would a communist state deal with homicides, robbery, thefts, burglaries, and other nuisance crime
This has always been a question of mine - how would a communist state deal with homicides, robbery, thefts, burglaries, and other nuisance crime
Idk, that seems to introduce a potential for moral hazard. We definitely wouldn't want an incentive to broaden the definition of a "habitual criminal" if there's a need for dangerous jobs to be filled.
I think it might also end up not really working to reintegrate someone into the community, particularly dangerous jobs are not usually that open to the public to observe, and if they are deliberately filled with "habitual criminals" then that might create a bad reputation for people who have performed those jobs.
I havent put an extreme amount of thought into it but it seems like it might work better to try and spread "community service" or whatever equivalent program this would be into as many appropriate workplaces as possible to not form a specific reputation of any one type of job as relegated to criminals, plus some jobs will be more immediately connected to the community and help build or rebuild a connection between someone that has done a crime and their community.
Better IMO to provide incentives and respect for those who choose to do risky work, unless there is an immediate emergency need to fill those positions.
Uh oh better cancel the rev there’s a chance of moral hazard
Weird take to imply someone is criticizing the rev as a whole when they critique a specific post-rev policy
I was attempting to be glib in implying that any post revolutionary scenario opens up the possibility for “moral hazards”. Any destruction of the preceding societal order opens up the space for abuse, just as the perpetuation of the current societal order opens up the space for the very same moral hazards. Turns out maybe just when human beings are involved in a system there is a chance of “moral hazards”.
Weird take to bring moralism into the historical necessity of the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. Was the bourgeoisie concerned with the moral hazard of overthrowing the divine right of kings?
Sure there will always be some moral hazards around but this sounds like the human nature argument of capitalism, if there are moral hazards you can identify in specific parts of a system, do you either just discard that observation as inevitable or good enough, or do you look for ways to minimize the dangers there?
Just sounds like you're arguing with someone who is concerned over the morality of a revolution as a whole, instead of what the person actually said which is that specifically giving risky and dangerous jobs to criminals risks introducing an incentive to find more criminals for dangerous positions when spots are open(and, I would add, comes off as a kind of passive retributive justice, where instead of directly punishing a criminal you place them in a position where they are more likely to be "punished" by circumstance).
Again, everyone here agrees on that, stop grandstanding.
Think of the moral hazard of capitalism needing workers to do dangerous jobs and therefore having an incentive to inflict poverty upon people until they are willing to risk their lives for a paycheck.
That would be crazy.
Well yeah sure, but thats not exactly an excuse for introducing potential incentives to stamp people as habitual criminals in order to coerce into dangerous work.
Everyone here is or should be already aware of the structural horrors of capitalism, its not exactly a dunk to throw that at someone who's offering a critique to a proposed alternative, no reason to settle for marginally better than current existing capitalism.
I wasn’t trying to dunk on anyone, just add to the conversation and topics to think about.