The best theory I've seen of problems with policing is the overuse of policing as a governance mechanism: "don't solve problems until they become bad enough to be policing problems"
This is a general pattern with the US: the most extreme escalation level becomes default escalation level.
- Private insurance to pay $100 for band-aids
- Courts and litigation for every small argument
- Policing to enforce what should be soft social norms turned into laws
And naturally Trumpism's solution is to escalate to an even more extreme thing: active-duty military and prison riot control guards for largely law-abiding civilians
Interesting how between Tocqueville and today, one of the highest-trust societies in the world turned into one of the lowest. Absolutely no tolerance for conflict or friction. Everything is either picket-fences norman rockwell painting or a crisis that calls for maximal response
The weird American love for libertarianism is I suspect more a rational reaction to this perception of "trust won't work here" than any actual psychological or ideological preference for radical individualism a la Sovereign Individual.
Growing up in India, which is much more densely packed around lot fewer resources, with a shit ton more friction around everything, I was really much more used to mutual accommodation. A common phrase was "thoda adjust kar lo" (just adjust a little). Trains, streets, everywhere.
This is a natural response in a society that has no illusions about its prosperity level. India is a poor country that knows it's a poor country, and except for a few weird people in bubbles, most navigate life with the expectation of a lot of mutual accommodation, compromise etc
The US by contrast is a middling-prosperous country that is convinced it is heaven on earth. And arranges matters so that a minority can have the best version of that illusion, while the rest just have to be either suing each other or on hold with customer service all the time.
Not saying the US should adopt the Indian level of misery tolerance and crappy mutual accommodation as a cost of living life. But it should definitely get to a more realistic sense of its actual prosperity level. Which is not "heaven" (and despite everything, not "hell")
Curiously, the make america great again line studiously ignores all the actual ways in which the US is NOT great, that are obvious on day 1 to any visitor. One look at American inner cities after I landed here in 97 from India and I was like "this is way worse than Mumbai slums"
(which was a genuine learning for me btw... based on tv/movies my previous mental model was: "the poor in the US have water, toilets, cars and TVs, why are they acting like they are worse off than people with nothing in Dharavi...)
I rarely talk about comparisons to India because native-born Americans are absolutely convinced they have absolutely exceptional versions of every problem that require exceptional solutions. Leads to interesting reactions when I *do* make such comparisons.
US Conservative: "people in developing world are actually poor and at least work hard... our poor are lazy, undeserving types who could have what we have if they were only willing to work harder"
US Liberals: "everyone can have a mansion if we taxed 1%ers right"
For those who don't get how the US poor can be worse of than Indian poor despite being materially better off, here is a post I wrote about that a while back, positing a "4th world condition"
Yes, extremely low-trust, which is why there is a desire to make everything outside immediate family be based on market mechanisms. Money-based stakes become a substitute for communal trust. Contracts replace relationships and handshakes.