I misinterpreted your intent because when someone says they "don't condone violence" in the context of police brutality, it's typically because they either

don't consider the police to be violence, or
are literally pacifists.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Do those socialist policies not rely on defensive violence as well?

Well, the idea to provide free housing rather than policing the unhoused certainly didn't.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm referring to how you were saying they could replace police.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The book stipulates that providing free housing would reduce crime committed by people who are unhoused. It also advocates for free health care for people and social workers for people who suffer from mental illness. Some will refuse treatment, as we already know. But not all. The book does not say that crime will end. It does make ten (I think) excellent points as a chapter each about failures of policing to address social problems. And it has damning statistics to back up the claims.

It's ridiculous that the richest nation in human history refuses to spend money on people in need other than for the purposes of enforcement. Doing so is counterproductive and wastes more money than just helping people. That's my take.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

I understand what you're saying about building better systems. But how do you expect any system to uphold the law without violence? What do you do about the crime that persists?