It's multi-faceted. It's not just make work/life more worthwhile either because there are places with relatively high unemployment but also low crime.
It's about civics and what society sets as acceptable boundaries and enforcing those boundaries and punishing those that stray too far.
Looks at the USA's wild west. It went from rampant violent crime to acceptable social order. The impetus often was locals wanting to transform from territory to union member state. The country required certain control over crime and usually the solution was to bring in sheriffs to control crime, bring in schools to teach civics and bring civilization (law and order) to a lawless place.
For clarity, do you mean that more police alone won't fix the problem by itself?
While I agree, I think more police could be part of the solution, or at least it's not an unreasonable point to bring up in the discussion.
Just hiring more people in a broken system is almost never a silver bullet, but there are times when it may be warranted as part of the solution. It's interesting to me how biased we are in application of this principle.
There was a particular discussion on HN where it seemed the prevailing opinion was "just hire more nurses to solve the healthcare problem." People were lambasted for hinting at the need to fix the systemic issues as well, because just throwing more people into a broken system rarely gets the results we want. If you ask nurses, they'll say you need to hire more nurses. If you ask police, they'll say you need to hire more police. It was hard for most to accept that idea when it comes one domain but not the other. I can't tell if it's something unique about the problem or just our biases leading the discussion.
>For clarity, do you mean that more police alone won't fix the problem by itself?
Yes. Sometimes we do need more police but the police alone cannot solve the issue. You also need a working system of justice and a system where people know they will be held responsible for wrongdoing (all around) and a system to handle people who need mental care (along with laws that allow the state to assume care for those incapable of caring for themselves) but again, we'd require the state not to abuse its power...
I still think there is normally acceptable behavior and non-normally acceptable behavior. Of late, we've swung too far on, "everything is normal". You wanna shit on the street? You wanna run sit naked in a restaurant? You wanna use intravenous drugs and get high in a playgrouund? You wanna just rummage and dump things from the supermarket aisles into your bag and run out?
It's multi-faceted. It's not just make work/life more worthwhile either because there are places with relatively high unemployment but also low crime.
It's about civics and what society sets as acceptable boundaries and enforcing those boundaries and punishing those that stray too far.
Looks at the USA's wild west. It went from rampant violent crime to acceptable social order. The impetus often was locals wanting to transform from territory to union member state. The country required certain control over crime and usually the solution was to bring in sheriffs to control crime, bring in schools to teach civics and bring civilization (law and order) to a lawless place.