Talk:Right realism

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

what is a warrant a warrant is something that the police are given by the state or government! in other words its like a permission slip 2 enter other peoples houses and search round —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.193.218 (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is made without complete understanding of the meaning of the use warrant. Warrant can refer to the official document allowing a law enforcement agent to enter a premise, to search, observe or execute the requirements set out in the official warrant.

The other use of warrant that is of concern here, is the official censure of an agent to undertake an act upon behalf. Thus, the police force and the military have the warrant of the state to use force in the pursuit of social order. They are the legitimated agent of state force and control. (Assault is a crime, war is often said to be a neccesity.)

Why is this the only school of criminology with a "Critique" section?--Lord of the Ping (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the above comment, this is the only section that someone has raised an issue with. To start a critique section, first find that which you have issue with and critique it. Soon people will get involved.

It should be noted that there is no serious critique actually occurring from either of these users, they merely lack understanding of the function of their tool, and have raised the issue here. The dispute appears to be non existent relating to the description of Right Realism, and should thus be removed.

References[edit]

This article has a bibliography but no inline references, so it is difficult to understand what the source of some of the assertions is. I've added the appropriate box to mark this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpjashby (talk • contribs) 21:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

Has anybody who understands conservatism been here? Right realism "asserts that it takes a more realistic view of the causes of crime and deviance, ... there is less emphasis on developing theories of causality in relation to crime and deviance ..." That's pretty close to a contradiction. Just because you don't like conservative opinions on the causes of crime, doesn't mean they don't have any. Similarly, "Privatization rather than social welfare has become the paradigm, despite there being no empirical evidence to suggest that the former has created any better outcomes, per unit cost, than the latter" is stated as a fact not an opinion. As a conservative, when asked for empirical evidence, a list of examples like modern Venezuela, and historic examples like the Ukrainian Holodromor, the Great Leap Forward, and the Khmer Rouge would be the obvious answer. (I would also argue that privatization IS social welfare, but I know what you meant to say.) Art LaPella (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So edit it. WP Ludicer (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]