re: Would you classify laws defunding police and scaling back criminal laws as "right wing"?

quote:

---

Would you classify laws defunding police and scaling back criminal laws as "right wing"?

---

it's "right wing" (or left wing) if they replace it with something more politically expedient. Defunding the police, and replacing with academia-activists is left wing. Defunding the police and filling their vacuum with survivalist militias would be right wing. It's not the action- it's the reaction/replacement that determines the political flavor of it.

quote:

---

Elimination of cash bail, even for those accused of murder?

---

Bail should rely ONLY on threat to the community or risk of flight to evade justice. Not means, not race, not upbringing, not having 7 different sexes. So here the crime accused of creeps in because the risk to the community is higher with the more serious the crime. But it shouldn't be a "schedule" based on that alone. The weight of the evidence as collected by LEO/DAs up into this point should have weight also.

quote:

---

Not prosecuting thefts under $1000?

---

BS. 'Broken Windows' works. Most would have already gotten a deferment if probation was successfully completed anyway. Might help (not solve) the drug problem also.

quote:

---

What about removing laws ensuring that marriage remains traditional between a man and a woman? Or other public order/enforcement of morality laws?

---

I personally think these are BS. Morality =/= Ethics =/= Law. That should be a local vote. Local below the state, which is problematic as most states have laws that a lower entity can not supersede state laws, e.g. a county can't have a mask mandate when the state has not enacted one. This falls under the category you are polling about - too many laws for what is trivial things. I'm defining "trivial" as they don't pose a risk to others. If they did, then there are non-morality laws that will be violated along the way.

quote:

---

Or what about wholescale scaling back our national security and defense spending/power below that of where Europe is, currently.

---

as the other poster said- selective and efficient spending is the solution here. Not blanket cut or not solutions. I don't care what Europe spends as long we, the USA, are examining on a regular basis if we are funding them so they can spend less or are we contributing on a basis that meets our needs.

quote:

---

Removing regulations/security at the border?

---

hell no. Maybe we would spend less in other places if we would secure our borders. These former Generals (and other defense personnel) have made a corrupt cottage industry out of "better to fight them there" and have taken it to Ukraine. At the same time our border is just plain ridiculous. It isn't a stand-alone solution. It must be hand-in-hand with punishments for groups/countries who systematically abuse it, domestic and foreign, as well as the removal of incentives for both the individual AND those groups/countries. There's two rules in "security" that always stand in general, and we are violating both of them:
1. If you are weak somewhere, those who wish to do you harm will find it.
2. If you incentivize something, you will get it... probably more than you anticipated.

quote:

---

I used to feel this way until I realized the large majority of these people are in prison because they took a plea deal for a lesser charge

---

We gotta stop lawyers from having this power.

quote:

---

Someone made a claim yesterday that "right wing" means "Libertarianism (big-L, anarchism).

---

I would consider most libertarians far right wing, but Big L also doesn't cover most libertarians.

Go away

quote:

---

I used to feel this way until I realized the large majority of these people are in prison because they took a plea deal for a lesser charge. We would definitely be letting more violent than non-violent criminals out if we went this route.

---

This also leads to prosecutors over-charging people as a bargaining position. In theory, the defense attorney's duty is to the defendant and the prosecutor's is to the truth but that's not how it ends up working.

quote:

---

I'm specifically choosing areas where "conservative" (in the traditional definition) supports expansion of state power and limiting individual liberties.

---

But people who are traditionally conservative are telling you that your characterization isn't accurate.

quote:

---

This also leads to prosecutors over-charging people as a bargaining position. In theory, the defense attorney's duty is to the defendant and the prosecutor's is to the truth but that's not how it ends up working.

---

True enough, but I doubt eliminating the ability to settle would erase this problem. I think it would make it worse. DAs would just charge the worst crime that fits and ask the judge to allow juries to find guilty of lesser charges.

quote:

---

Libertarian is much closer to anarchy than the far right.

---

Yet its individualist, which is right wing. I find it far right personally.

Collectiveness is left wing. The closer you get to the middle, the more people sell out.

quote:

---

I mean laws to control people.

---

Correct.

Go watch badgecam videos, you'll quickly find out that a cops job is to get you into the system.

We have waaaaaay too many laws and regulations governing people but not enough penalty on those who commit violent acts, or repeat property crimes.

quote:

---

Or what about wholescale scaling back our national security and defense spending/power below that of where Europe is, currently.

---

The problem with that is the bad guys will always move into the void left behind. See Afghanistan. We should have left there but kept Bagram and moved our embassy there. Force the Afghans to accept that the base is part of the embassy and therefore US soil.

Much of this same stuff happens in Europe. They dont need to spend money on their own defense as long as Uncle Sam is