Just to be clear upfront, my personal view on cops is much closer to Walter Block's assessment (his "one third in favor" thing), since they're funded by coercive means, you get what you pay for.
Also to be clear, I'm a fan of both Walter Block and GreaterSapiean. So it's interesting to see how they both approach this topic.
This is just for reference. Neither video directly uses these sources for their numbers, I just wanted to independently look them up for myself.
- 2018 Resident population of the United States by race
- Population (in millions)
- All Races: 326.68
- White: 249.96 (76.5 %)
- Black: 43.73 (13.3 %)
- All Races: 326.68
- Population (in millions)
- 2018 Estimated number of arrests by offense and race
- All Offences
- All Races: 10,310,960
- White: 7,115,940 (69.0 %)
- Black: 2,826,460 (27.4 %)
- All Races: 10,310,960
- Violent crimes
- All Races: 495,900
1. White: 288,620 (58.2 %)
2. Black: 187,470 (37.8 %)
- All Races: 495,900
- All Offences
Walter Block and Stefan Molyneux on the topic: bitchute.com/video/g2od8O6wiOaL
You can watch Walter Block discuss the police situation with Stefan Molyneux on BitChute. BitChute embeds are not (yet) supported on Hive, but the link works fine.
What follows, is what GS (GreaterSapien) thinks of these kinds of "red pill" discussions. I want to emphasize, I admire GS very much. He's a deep thinker. But I also think he made a serious mistake in this analysis:
Check it out. If you're a red-pill, you're a racist (but apparently, that's not racist?).
As you can see, while Block indeed claims the arrest rate is 50/50 (or so), which is used to explain the higher fatalities, GS initially refutes this by saying that arrests don't always follow to conviction but assumes they do for sake of discussion. GS then tries to compare the arrest rate to the total population, for some reason. He does not correlate police encounters with arrests, for some reason.
So what GS did is disingenuous, if he did it on purpose. Or it's just a mistake. I don't know, keeping in mind that, someone even suggesting GS is even unintentionally wrong about this is racist.
Basically, he indirectly asserts that total police encounters have no bearing on the chance that the specific person who is being harassed by police has any likelihood of ever being a criminal. Therefore, racism.
GS is ignoring the fact that some people never encounter the police, so you shouldn't include them in your statistics. He's assuming that a) everyone has a chance of encountering police, instead of, b) criminals are more likely to encounter police.
By assuming "b", I'm also not suggesting that everyone who encounters police is a criminal. Block explains this very clearly. GS ignores this entirely.
Instead, what GS is doing is actually pretty smart. He's taking the "bad apples" argument that is used to defend police and applying that same logic to the entire population. I've never been a fan of the "bad apples" argument.
He's saying that if you use the same method on one group (to defend police), why can't you also use the same method on the total population? E.g.:
- The usual "bad apples" argument is (simplified): Only 1% of the cops make the other 99% look bad.
- Therefore, let's use that on the entire population: Only 1% of the population makes the other 99% look bad.
It's interesting that GS ignores the inverted equation for cops: If we took the sample of officers who are likely to be involved in fatal shootings, as Block does for populations, do we see another level of detail?
Well, it seems that GS does sort-of (again disingenuously) apply a part of that inverted equation (skip to 16:44), just for fun. Apparently, cops in general are 108 times more murderous than the entire black population. But we should ... not believe those numbers or something. I'm not sure. I guess if he seriously promotes the "108 times more murderous" numbers, we would have to accept the previous racist cherrypicking, so that's a no-go.
I'm left concluding: I guess the only way to solve this is with riots.</snark>