Main Page Contact Register Log In

There is also a very weird hands on approach on Americans about personal security. What are you going to do when a criminal is about to crime you? An american will either say that give chance for the crime to happen in the first place or that they have the means to adequately use force to prevent the crim efrom happening. But I am more like "Dude criminal, you did a crime against me, that means you are going to face legal trouble". That is instead of me punching the criminal in the face I have public servants do it for me. To me if life isn't on the line it is quite adequate to not violently resist a crime.

Seems americans are not really content on having criminal sentences be an adequate consequence for crimes. Many states want to keep the death penalty. Their legal matters are of huge monetary amounts. Their prisons swell in record rates. Victims are left for craving more that the confines of the legal consequences are not enough. They rather want to keep things informal and immidiet. They think that the proper place to deal justice against a breaking and entering is their door step, the man-o-man of one stepping over the boundaries of another. A conflict between indviduals as opposed to a faceless society against a lone criminal.

There is also a sharp separation of fortunes. Just because someone is worse off than me doesn't detract from my right to live an undisturbed unique snowflake life. If the existence of other people dare make a wringle to it is an unforgiveable violation of freedom. There might be an implicit understanding that it is understandable why others covet what you have. Part of the reason you work so hard is to have things that other do not have or can not have. Thus there is an understanding that those that can not climb the ladder will misbehave and those that have the power are obliged to keep their misbehaviour from affecting those that agree to climb the ladder.

I am more used to crime being just downrigth embarrasing for the perpetrator. That to fault at your fellow citizen is to crumble the society that we all use in our differnt ways to live. Keep those less fortunate on a good path so that we do not turn on one another. In exchange for them to allow me have somewhat more my existence allows them to live a more empowered life than they would have alone. When there are disagreement we will use the police and courts to solve and make as working solution as possible for all.

One theory of the state is monopolization of violence. In order for it to be sensible the police has to show up and be effective and use fair means to deal out the violence. If violence was not monopolized it would potentially be a free-for-all danger all the time. But if everybody is ready to draw at a moments notice there isn't much difference to a lawless wild west. We shake hands to show that we don't carry weapons. We argue in court because we think that the violence user is interested in using the violence entrusted in them in a consistent manner. I do not need to personally carry arms because if I have something to complain about I can have my complaints heard and the approriate action be taken on behalf of me with force if neccesary. Things are civil because conflicts can be verbal and usage of weapons doesn't further anyones cause.

A american doesn't want to have crimes committed against them but they dont' want to empowerd the police with the proper rights to effectively prevent them cheaply or give them the budjet to prevent them in a way that doesn't violate their freedom. They are left as individual private citizens to fight crime. One could also interpret it as a lack of peace stability. There isn't a budjet to keep the whole city safe so only central areas are kept. People don't want to enlarge the budjets because that means taxes and that means less individual authority to use their income. They want peace but they don't want to pay for it or atleast they want to be able to personally provide their own peace.