Then we are speaking to much of the same thing. When punishment is swift, sure, and public, it serves as a deterrent. When it is delayed, unsure, and takes place out of sight, it is not. A cop on every corner signals that punishment will be the former rather than the latter, and so crime is reduced.Sorry I meant cops, cops on the street.
Defense is a collective action issue and an issue of the commons. It is the primary reason that we have the State. I've noticed it's a common failure for those who have an unbounded vision in favor of the state to assume their opposition has an unbounded vision in the opposite direction (which is why some people so foolishly think that Somalia is a libertarian paradise, or the level of governance that libertarians want), but that is not the case. Where incentives align to create tragedies of the commons in manners that put at risk our rights [for example, the enforcement of contracts, protection of personal autonomy, defense, and pollution] , there the state rightfully exercises its' coercive power.Funny seeing a conservative defend the right of the State forcing the draft ... yet calling leftists Statists for supporting having more in the commons.
Then you are misreading me. We have institutions to protect the people. I am saying that the lives of the many innocents outweigh the lives of the few guilty.A cop cannot kill to enforce the law, a cop can only kill to defend life.
Also they are not criminals unless they go through the justice system. But I think the fundemental issue is this.
For me institutions of law exist for the people, you seam to think it's vice versa.