[MD] subject / object logic

[Arlo Bensinger]

[SA]
That seems to be a current trend.  Rehabilitate people back into 
'normal' society.  But we've all probably heard before, "What is normal?"

[Arlo]
"Normal" is, of course, operationally defined (mostly) as operating 
within established social parameters. In this context, it usually 
means "adherence to the local, state and federal laws as mandated by 
elected governance". We expect some dissent, of course, which is both 
healthy and vital. But "murdering" can never be tolerated, it must be 
dealt with as a dangerous pattern to be contained. The issue, surely, 
is that no social pattern can ever completely eliminate criminal 
activity. Even the most hardened of social regimes, where petty 
shoplifting is dealt with by the removal of limbs, still has 
occurrences of crime.

But my point was not that "rehabilitation" should be the only avenue 
considered in handling crime. That's just more of the weird 
dichotomies laid forth by party ideologues. No, I think that 
rehabilitation has to be PART of a COMPREHENSIVE approach regarding 
certain criminal activity. The cost of incarceration is phenomenal, 
and if those who have committed past crimes can be brought back to be 
productive members of society, we all win. I also think that some 
criminals, such as pedophiles and rapists, we may have to face the 
fact that rehabilitation may rarely work. At that point we need to 
consider other options to incarceration. Society seems ill-ready to 
accept such things as mandatory castration for these types of crimes, 
so it may have to accept that we foot the bill for lifelong incarceration.

But this is a complex issue to sort out. Which is why I find posting 
that one Pirsig quote over-and-over really does nothing to solve 
anything. Yes, we need more police in many high-crime areas. Yes, we 
need to give police the authority and power to deal with the war they 
are fighting. But saying that this is the beginning and end to 
solving the problem is ridiculous. And this brings us to the next point.

[Arlo previously]
What is it that these other countries are doing, that we are not, 
that is keeping this level of "biological  violence" in check? Are 
these "socialized" regions guided by a better  intellectual pattern 
than America?

[SA]
All good questions.  Also, Japan, a very strong economic society over 
the last 50 years.  Japan's crime rate is very, very low.  But I have 
difficulty putting together everybody gets $50 and that solves all 
the problems.  That's a bit too surface of a solution.  Something 
else must be going on.

[Arlo]
There is the option that the crime the US deals with is an 
unfortunate consequence of the "freedom" we enjoy. If we have the 
"best", we also have to have the "worst". In which case the 
high-crime, dangerous gangs and levels of violence is something we 
can "fight" but can never truly defeat. We have to resign ourselves 
to living with it in order to also live with the beneficial freedoms 
we enjoy. This satiates the patriotic "We da best!" need for many, 
but it leaves the possibility for change out. Platt can post that 
Pirsig quotation thousands of times, but the only possibility for 
altering the crime rate is to squelch the freedoms of the citizenry. 
This is, perhaps, one way of looking at the gun control laws many 
nations have enacted. Of course, that's simplistic, but the bottom 
line is this. If the crime we face is a consequence of the freedoms 
we enjoy, then we have to just shut up and live with it.

But money is on what you say, "something else must be going on".

[SA]
Could it be the impression that government cares?  These governments 
attempt to help their citizens get their basic needs and medical 
care.  Could it be in the attempt, just having that loud voice 
declared throughout the country that we care and will try to help, 
and then 'things' visibly happen that people find this caring and 
visible follow through on this attempt to care - soothing and 
helpful.  It is this support attempt.  Is that all we need, a big 
part of what we need, a small part of what we need, or not what we need?

[Arlo]
A bit of tangent in this discussion, but as I've said, the Raygun-ere 
"government is the problem" one-liner is likely the single, most 
deceitful and outrageously dishonest propaganda tactics in modern 
American history. Certainly we have a nation thunderbeat with this 
slogan so many times we have come to loathe politicians and consider 
the government to be our enemy. While there is much in the 
bureaucracy to loathe, I'd agree, the notion that governance itself 
is at fault is idiotic. "Government" has brought us a common 
currency, public lands, freely traversible roads and waterways, 
libraries, museums, border protection, police, military, fire, emt, 
public transit, resource management, environmental and labor 
protections, and other strong supportive social structures. "Abuse of 
governance" is something we should always remain vigilant against, as 
we should with abuses of power of any sort.

Anyway, let's wait to see what Platt has to say about "what's going 
on" in these other countries that affords them such a comparably 
lower rate of violence, crime and gang activity. Do they employ more 
police? Do they "humiliate" their kids in school? Do they demand more 
discipline in the homes? I'm curious?

As part of an answer. I think Michael Moore's brilliant "Bowling for 
Columbine" answers to the root of this question. Its not a total 
answer, of course, as it is a complex issue, but I think its a great 
place to start.