A German policy instructs authorities to avoid confronting individuals who might escalate. This effectively creates a two-tiered justice system where the weak and compliant are policed, while aggressive bullies are ignored. This incentivizes threatening behavior and destabilizes society.
Related Insights
When cities stop prosecuting crimes like shoplifting under the assumption it's driven by poverty, they inadvertently create a lucrative market for organized crime. Sophisticated gangs exploit this leniency to run large-scale theft operations, harming the community more than the original policy intended to help.
Claiming you will only 'turn down the temperature' after your opponents do is not a strategy for de-escalation; it is a justification for retaliation. This 'counter-punching' approach ensures conflict continues. A genuine desire to reduce societal tension requires leading by example, not waiting for the other side to act first.
Mayor Daniel Lurie explicitly states his administration has ended the city's long-standing "live and let live" approach to public disorder. This marks a significant policy and cultural shift, prioritizing public safety and quality of life through stricter enforcement over passive tolerance, reflecting a broader trend in liberal cities.
When local authorities refuse to transfer arrested criminal aliens to ICE from jails, it forces federal agents to conduct riskier arrests in public. This 'massive resistance' creates a more volatile environment, increasing the likelihood of violent encounters and tragic outcomes for agents and the public.
When police remove a Jewish man from a pro-Palestinian march for his own safety, they are misplacing the responsibility for potential violence. This logic is akin to victim-blaming. The duty of law enforcement in a free society is to protect individuals from attack, not to remove them because their presence might agitate a violent mob.
When police departments face severe staffing shortages due to cultural vilification, they may lower hiring standards. This can lead to hiring individuals with criminal backgrounds, who then commit heinous acts as officers, further damaging public trust and exacerbating the original problem.
People often frame a person's situation as a "choice" to justify punishment or unsympathetic treatment. This linguistic move shifts blame onto the individual, providing a moral license to enact punishment. This pattern is prevalent in contexts ranging from airline policies to broader political discourse.
The public is becoming desensitized to government behaviors, such as ICE's excessive force, that should be universally unacceptable. This "new normal" creates a dangerous precedent where nonpartisan revulsion is replaced by partisan justification, eroding democratic standards for everyone.
The current political dynamic, where one side consistently forgives norm violations, is unsustainable. Game theory suggests a better strategy is 'tit-for-tat with forgiveness': respond in kind to adversarial actions to establish consequences, but also offer an off-ramp back to cooperation. This is more stable than endless retaliation.
When moderate leaders respond to radical actions with tepid statements instead of decisive opposition, they grant tacit approval. Their lack of a strong reaction acts as a "weather vane for normies," signaling to average citizens that the behavior is acceptable.
